Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
Mounting Wheels seems like a bad idea, it was one of the things Daniel
explicitly removed (since Wheels are basically cleaned up eggs). Adding
it back in ex post facto seems like it's an idea that's going down the wrong
track.
Like I said, the sky
On 21 August 2013 07:36, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
Mounting Wheels seems like a bad idea, it was one of the things Daniel
explicitly removed (since Wheels are basically cleaned up eggs). Adding
it back in ex post facto seems like
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
I'm concerned that you need extra metadata (not described in the wheel
spec) to do this. It means that there are in effect two subtly different
types of wheel. To be specific, if I create a wheel for (say) pyzmq using
distil, and mount it, everything
On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:32 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
I'm concerned that you need extra metadata (not described in the wheel
spec) to do this. It means that there are in effect two subtly different
types of wheel. To be specific,
On 21 August 2013 08:45, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
My basic problem is if the library we're pointing at to be the reference
implementation of all of these things is adding new features it's
confusing what
is standard and what are just distlib's extensions.
So basically I want
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so here's a concrete question for distutils-sig. If I want to use wheels
in my app (built them, install them, whatever) what should I use as my
reference implementation. I don't want to implement the code myself, I just
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
However what I don't really want is to be using someones personal testbed
for features they think is cool. There's nothing *wrong* with you trying
new ideas out in distlib, it just means that distib isn't the library I
want to build tooling around.
On 21 August 2013 09:09, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so here's a concrete question for distutils-sig. If I want to use
wheels in my app (built them, install them, whatever) what should I use as
my reference
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:23 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
However what I don't really want is to be using someones personal testbed
for features they think is cool. There's nothing *wrong* with you trying
new ideas out in distlib, it
On 21 August 2013 09:56, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
ISTM distlib is not yet that reference library - it's just another
library
for most people, judging from the low level of feedback I've had overall.
That's totally fine. We just need to be clear that it's not the reference
On Aug 21, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 09:56, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
ISTM distlib is not yet that reference library - it's just another library
for most people, judging from the low level of feedback I've had overall.
That's
On 21 August 2013 10:29, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Can you send me a list (or post them here) of what issues you've hit? The
biggest one i'm aware of is the scripts problem which is a fundamental
problem with the 1.0 Wheel (or rather that any library with console entry
points
On Aug 21, 2013, at 5:46 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 10:29, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Can you send me a list (or post them here) of what issues you've hit? The
biggest one i'm aware of is the scripts problem which is a fundamental
problem with
On 21 August 2013 10:48, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
I think Wheel files are (and should be) independent of the particular
metadata version used. That file should contain the required information in
order to know what version of the metadata is included with the Wheel. This
means
On 21 August 2013 08:04, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com writes:
I think that they are responsible for installing the f2py script in
each of my Scripts directories. I never use this script and I don't
know what numpy wants with it (my
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 10:48, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
I think Wheel files are (and should be) independent of the particular
metadata version used. That file should contain the required information in
order to know
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
introspecting the author email address
Of course I wrote that and then did summary because the location of the author
email address changed between Metadata 1.x and 2.x and I didn't feel like
looking up the exact difference.
On 21 August 2013 11:30, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
introspecting the author email address
Of course I wrote that and then did summary because the location of the
author email address changed between Metadata 1.x
On 21 August 2013 11:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I may have misunderstood it but looking at this
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/tools/win32build/nsis_scripts/numpy-superinstaller.nsi.in#L147
I think that the installer ships variants for each architecture
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 11:30, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
introspecting the author email address
Of course I wrote that and then did summary because
On 21 August 2013 11:39, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 11:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I may have misunderstood it but looking at this
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/tools/win32build/nsis_scripts/numpy-superinstaller.nsi.in#L147
I
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 11:39, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 11:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I may have misunderstood it but looking at this
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
My problem is that as someone who wants to implement code that uses the
new features like wheels, I want a usable reference implementation that
covers the (agreed) standards. I don't particularly want my application
to incorporate support for
On 21 August 2013 11:47, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Metadata 2.0 includes the ability to have a post install script, but Wheel
is not yet using Metadata 2.0 (and it's not yet finalized).
But when Metadata 2.0 support is available, what you (Oscar) suggest does
sound like a
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
My problem is that as someone who wants to implement code that uses the
new features like wheels, I want a usable reference implementation that
covers the (agreed) standards. I
On 21 August 2013 11:56, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
But I think we have a reasonable consensus on how scripts should work,
Do we?
To the level of wheels builders should write metadata that defines the
scripts and wheel installers should generate the necessary wrappers then
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
Another one IIRC was that distlib didn't put entry-points.txt in the
.dist-info directory in the wheel (which breaks entry points). I think
that's fixed now (and again, the Wheel spec is silent on what is correct
behaviour here).
Right. The recent
On 21 August 2013 13:01, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to say distlib won't support pre-Metadata 2.0 specifications
of script metadata, then that's your choice - it's not contrary to the
standards but I'd view it as a quality of implementation choice. I view the
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
BUT, this means that there is no spec of the current behaviour, and no
implementation of the Wheel 1.0 spec anywhere.
[snip]
or the wheel spec needs a review reasonably soon.
I think it's this. I'm not sure to what extent wheels are being used in
anger
This is the first time that I've tested using wheels and I have a
couple of questions.
Here's what I did (is this right?):
$ cat spam.py
# spam.py
print('running spam from:', __file__)
$ cat setup.py
from setuptools import setup
setup(name='spam',
version='1.0',
py_modules=['spam'])
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
I think the way you view distlib and the way other are viewing distlib are
different (and that's ok). We just need to know what distlib is so we can
have reasonable expectations of it. What i'm getting from you is that, at
least right now, distlib
On 21 August 2013 13:59, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the first time that I've tested using wheels and I have a
couple of questions.
Here's what I did (is this right?):
$ cat spam.py
# spam.py
print('running spam from:', __file__)
$ cat setup.py
from
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 12:22, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
Another one IIRC was that distlib didn't put entry-points.txt in the
.dist-info directory in the wheel (which
On Aug 21, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
I think the way you view distlib and the way other are viewing distlib are
different (and that's ok). We just need to know what distlib is so we can
have reasonable
On 21 August 2013 14:08, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 13:59, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
$ cat spam.py
# spam.py
print('running spam from:', __file__)
[snip]
Looks good. You might want to add the (undocumented) universal flag to
setup.cfg, as
On 21 August 2013 14:28, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
So I tried updating everything e.g.:
$ pip install -U wheel pip setuptools
[lots omitted for brevity]
Some thoughts.
pip 1.3.1 predates pip's wheel support so you wouldn't have had pip install
--use-wheel there.
The
On 21 August 2013 14:56, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 14:28, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
So I tried updating everything e.g.:
$ pip install -U wheel pip setuptools
[lots omitted for brevity]
Some thoughts.
pip 1.3.1 predates pip's wheel
A fresh virtualenv would have been the humane way to get a working
'pip install wheel'.
Wheel's built in installer isn't intended to replace or be better than
pip in any way. It's just for reference or bootstrapping.
FYI if you point pip directly at the .whl file you can omit --use-wheel.
PS I
On 21 August 2013 15:48, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
For people watching at home, upgrading pip really isn't this scary :-)
I'm
just making it sound scary (a) because I don't know the precise upgrade
instructions for setuptools and (b) because you need to do setuptools
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
I think you're using a completely different definition of reference
implementation than I've ever seen used. A reference implementation
Quite possibly, but I feel justified in this case ... I'll say why below.
by definition cannot contain
On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io writes:
I think you're using a completely different definition of reference
implementation than I've ever seen used. A reference implementation
Quite possibly, but I feel justified
On 08/21/2013 03:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Can you send me a list (or post them here) of what issues you've hit?
The biggest one i'm aware of is the scripts problem which is a
fundamental problem with the 1.0 Wheel (or rather that any library with
console entry points cannot be universal).
On 21 August 2013 15:57, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
A fresh virtualenv would have been the humane way to get a working
'pip install wheel'.
Good point. I think I learned an important point going through that
upgrade mess though: uninstall/reinstall is safer than upgrade.
Wheel's
On 21 August 2013 15:57, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 15:48, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it perhaps safer to suggest the following?
a) uninstall pip/setuptools/distribute
b) run ez_setup.py
c) run get-pip.py
It probably is. I've heard
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
An example is the wsgiref from the standard library.
It's an example, alright, but not for your side. ;-) The wsgiref
library doesn't just implement the spec, it implements a ton of
utility classes for use with the spec.
On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:31 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
Personally, I'm very happy to see Vinay's extensions, because they are
IMO important validations of whether the new specs are likely to be
useful for replacing all of setuptools' functionality. There are
people who need to
On 21 August 2013 17:21, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay I've just tried that and that's definitely the way I want to use it.
So basically:
$ python setup.py bdist_wheel # Makes wheels
With pip and wheel installed
pip wheel .
will also build a wheel from the current
On 08/21/2013 10:32 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
2) Wheel's decision to follow distutils' documentation rather than
distutils' behavior when it comes to the location for installing
data_files with relative paths; see
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
On 08/21/2013 03:29 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Can you send me a list (or post them here) of what issues you've hit?
The biggest one i'm aware of is the scripts problem which is a
fundamental problem with the 1.0 Wheel (or
1) Wheel's conversion of - to _ in version strings embedded in
filenames, which breaks with setuptools precedent; see
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1150 and
https://bitbucket.org/dholth/wheel/issue/78/wheel-rewrites-versions-preventing
No good solution to this one just yet.
not
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
That implies that any wheel reference implementation needs to expose APIs
for reading and writing the metadata to/from the wheel.
Not necessarily. For example, distlib's approach side-steps the need for such
a write API: you tell Wheel.build which
On 21 Aug 2013 20:40, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 11:29, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com
wrote:
I may have misunderstood it but looking at this
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/tools/win32build/nsis_scripts/numpy-superinstaller.nsi.in#L147
I
On 21 Aug 2013 22:42, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
BUT, this means that there is no spec of the current behaviour, and no
implementation of the Wheel 1.0 spec anywhere.
[snip]
or the wheel spec needs a review reasonably soon.
I
On 21 August 2013 21:40, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Um, the current wheel spec uses PEP 345 + setuptools metadata only. If
distlib is expecting PEP 426 metadata in wheel files, it is not compliant
with the spec.
There won't be a new version of the wheel spec until after PEP 426
On 21 August 2013 21:35, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm reasonably confident the wheel format *doesn't* meet the scientific
community's needs in the general case, and can't be made to do so without a
lot of additional complexity. That's why I explicitly support the
hashdist/conda
On 22 Aug 2013 06:57, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 21:35, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm reasonably confident the wheel format *doesn't* meet the scientific
community's needs in the general case, and can't be made to do so without a
lot of additional
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Right. I wasn't really aware Vinay was adding experimental ideas to
distlib, I thought it was just the proven stable core from distutils2,
plus support for the draft PEPs, with the experimental stuff entirely in
distil rather than in distlib.
I've
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Um, the current wheel spec uses PEP 345 + setuptools metadata only. If
distlib is expecting PEP 426 metadata in wheel files, it is not compliant with
the spec.
I can certainly rectify that - I was possibly confused by the fact that the
latest wheel
On 22 August 2013 08:12, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I've been up front about what's in distlib all along - check the overview
page in the distlib docs. Above all, I want the stuff I do to be *useful*,
rather than tick boxes here and there.
Right, you didn't do anything wrong,
On 22 August 2013 08:20, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Um, the current wheel spec uses PEP 345 + setuptools metadata only. If
distlib is expecting PEP 426 metadata in wheel files, it is not compliant with
the spec.
I can certainly
60 matches
Mail list logo
