2014-09-30 18:07 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com:
Paul Moore wrote:
On 30 September 2014 16:56, Olivier Grisel olivier.gri...@ensta.org wrote:
What is the story for project maintainers who want to also support
Python 3.3+ (for 32 bit and 64 bit python) for their project with
Hi Chris,
On 09/30/2014 05:44 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
2) Secondly, like many, my README files are in markdown, so I hacked
a command in my setup.py to use Pandoc to convert README.md to a .rst
file for use as the long_description argument to setup(). I also
check in the resulting file for
Thank you all for the precious info.
Here are my observations:
- We are merely writing extension modules with third party dependant code
packaged in a dll. In my mind, this use case is not the exception, and would
not necessarily warrant the use of a full blown solution like conda. Our
David Genest wrote:
1) add the dependent dlls to every package that needs it (Steve's answer
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2014-September/024982.html
concurs that the dependent dll would be loaded only once)
This is the best approach regardless of what else works/doesn't
On 1 October 2014 17:44, David Genest david.gen...@ubisoft.com wrote:
- If you run python setup.py bdist_wheel, the dlls specified in the scripts
parameter end up in the wheel archive and does what is needed for our setup.
(the dlls are copied to the scripts directory which is on PATH for the
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:44 PM, David Genest david.gen...@ubisoft.com
wrote:
Thank you all for the precious info.
Here are my observations:
- We are merely writing extension modules with third party dependant code
packaged in a dll. In my mind, this use case is not the exception, and
would
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:44 AM, David Genest david.gen...@ubisoft.com
wrote:
- We are merely writing extension modules with third party dependent code
packaged in a dll. In my mind, this use case is not the exception, and
would not necessarily warrant the use of a full blown solution like
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 October 2014 17:44, David Genest david.gen...@ubisoft.com wrote:
- If you run python setup.py bdist_wheel, the dlls specified in the scripts
parameter end up in the wheel archive and does what is needed for our setup.
On 1 October 2014 21:06, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
You are confusing generated entry_points script wrappers with the
setup(scripts=...) scripts. The scripts=... scripts should never be
skipped, even with --skip-scripts, they should work the same as they
always have.
Sorry, you're
On 2 Oct 2014 06:12, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 October 2014 21:06, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
You are confusing generated entry_points script wrappers with the
setup(scripts=...) scripts. The scripts=... scripts should never be
skipped, even with --skip-scripts,
On 1 October 2014 23:10, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, you're right. But the legacy (non entry-point) scripts are
certainly fragile, and I'd recommend avoiding them. Even for actual
scripts, and *certainly* as a hack to get things in the Scripts
directory...
Note that PEP 459
Note that PEP 459 currently proposes preserving this capability as
python.commands.prebuilt, so I personally consider it reasonable as a way
of packaging arbitrary
executables and non-entry-point based scripts.
Yes, this will prove valuable (for other things than dlls, admittedly).
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
