Re: [Distutils] Which Build Distribution Formats do exist?

There are other formats also. This distutils doc explain the "native" ones: https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/builtdist.html On 4 November 2015 at 21:09, Alexander Walters wrote: > > > On 11/4/2015 15:13, Thomas Güttler wrote: > >> From >>

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: > As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend > to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I > suspect they tend to live on GitHub instead. Is there really a need for this? Which parts are on

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

I'm slowly working on something to transfer the issues, then it might be feasible to move things into one place as people agree. However currently I'm without a personal PC, so no open source work for me -- Ronny Am 5. November 2015 20:27:15 MEZ, schrieb "Thomas Güttler"

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: >> As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend >> to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I >> suspect they

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On November 5, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de) wrote: > Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: > > As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend > > to live on bitbucket. Git projects can live in either place although I > > suspect

Re: [Distutils] Which Build Distribution Formats do exist?

Am 05.11.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Leonardo Rochael Almeida: > There are other formats also. This distutils doc explain the "native" ones: > > https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/builtdist.html The PyPUG tells me to use setuptools. Now I feel on unsafe ground if I read docs from a tool I don't use

Re: [Distutils] The Update Framework, integrate into PyPI?

Am 04.11.2015 um 21:25 schrieb Nathaniel Smith: > Hi Thomas, > > It's great you're so enthusiastic about python packaging and distribution, > but it might be good to keep in mind that there are a lot of people reading > these lists, and answering basic questions can take time away from making

Re: [Distutils] The Update Framework, integrate into PyPI?

On November 5, 2015 at 2:51:46 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de) wrote: > Am 04.11.2015 um 21:25 schrieb Nathaniel Smith: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > It's great you're so enthusiastic about python packaging and distribution, > > but it > might be good to keep in mind that there are

Re: [Distutils] Which Build Distribution Formats do exist?

There are also third party things like freeze and py2app. -Rob On 5 November 2015 at 09:13, Thomas Güttler wrote: > From http://python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/glossary/ > >> Egg >> A Built Distribution format introduced by setuptools, which

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

Am 05.11.2015 um 20:36 schrieb Donald Stufft: > On November 5, 2015 at 2:27:36 PM, Thomas Güttler > (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de) wrote: >> Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: >>> As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend >>> to live on bitbucket. Git

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > I’m not at my computer, but does ``pip install —no-clean —build build dir>`` make this work? > No, that option seems to not work at all. I tried with both a relative and an absolute path to --build. In the specified dir

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

If ``pip install —build … —no-clean …`` worked to do incremental builds, would that satisfy this use case? (without the —upgrade and —no-deps, —no-deps is only needed because —upgrade and —upgrade is needed because of another ticket that I think will get fixed at some point). On November 5,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On 5 November 2015 at 21:08, Donald Stufft wrote: >> Thoughts? > > The executable zip solution is in principle the best long-term > solution. But the breakage is major, and it pretty much permanently >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 5 November 2015 at 21:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > Thoughts? The executable zip solution is in principle the best long-term solution. But the breakage is major, and it pretty much permanently cuts off any option to support use of pip as a library. That's probably OK, but we

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> I’m not at my computer, but does ``pip install —no-clean —build > build dir>`` make this work? >> > > No, that option seems to not work

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

PyPA is very loosely organized and largely volunteer. I do not mind if Mercurial prevents you from submitting a pull request to bdist_wheel. Also before pypa you would have had to visit multiple personal accounts on each service to find the projects. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:22 PM Ian Cordasco

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

Am 05.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Ronny Pfannschmidt: > I'm slowly working on something to transfer the issues, then it might be > feasible to move things into one place as people agree. I don't get you the packing-people. You are working on something. What are you working on? I guess you need to

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco: >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler >> wrote: >>> Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: As I understand it,

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On 5 November 2015 at 20:40, Marcus Smith wrote: > > https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/history/ > > maybe even funnier that we have a history page, but it's easy to forget all > that's happened, so I made one awhile back... Wow distutils was released in 2000, 15 years ago. I

[Distutils] The future of invoking pip

There is currently a semi related set of problems that I'd really like to figure out an answer too so we can begin to work on a migration path and close these out. This is dealing with a fairly fundamental aspect of pip so I'm bringing it up here to try and get wider discussion than the issue

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On November 5, 2015 at 3:54:18 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de) wrote: > Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler > > wrote: > >> Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: > >>> As I understand it, some people prefer

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

I’m not at my computer, but does ``pip install —no-clean —build `` make this work?  On November 5, 2015 at 5:25:16 PM, Ralf Gommers (ralf.gomm...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < > chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > > >> I'm not talking about in

Re: [Distutils] The Update Framework, integrate into PyPI?

On 5 November 2015 at 19:51, Thomas Güttler wrote: > My guess is that 99% of all new comers get confused by the current docs. My guess (no more or less accurate than yours!) is that very few new users read the docs. Maybe they get confused by the UI of the tools,

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

> > > > Basically: Historical reasons. The name “PyPA” was a joke by the > pip/virtualenv developers and it was only pip and virtualenv so it was on > Github. here's an anecdote per the pypa.io history page, 'Other proposed names were “ianb-ng”, “cabal”, “pack” and “Ministry of

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

Am 05.11.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Ian Cordasco: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Güttler > wrote: >> Am 04.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Ian Cordasco: >>> As I understand it, some people prefer Mercurial. Those projects tend >>> to live on bitbucket. Git projects can

Re: [Distutils] Which Build Distribution Formats do exist?

Hi Thomas On 5 November 2015 at 17:42, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 05.11.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Leonardo Rochael Almeida: > > There are other formats also. This distutils doc explain the "native" > ones: > > > > https://docs.python.org/2/distutils/builtdist.html > >

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > >> I'm not talking about in place installs, I'm talking about e.g. > building a > >> wheel and then tweaking one file and rebuilding -- traditionally build > >> systems go to some effort to keep track of

Re: [Distutils] Why github and bitbucket?

On November 5, 2015 at 3:18:19 PM, Thomas Güttler (guettl...@thomas-guettler.de) wrote: > > I just ask myself why this was not done from the start: find a consensus. > Of course I see that it is very hard to > change the current state. Basically: Historical reasons. The name “PyPA” was a joke

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Nov 05, 2015, at 04:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >One benefit of the third option is that we can remove the need to directly >copy the bundled libraries into the pip source code and we can install just >bundle it inside the built zip file. This shouldn't be a problem from Debian's p.o.v. if we

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 5, 2015 at 5:06:07 PM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote: > On Nov 05, 2015, at 04:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > >One benefit of the third option is that we can remove the need to directly > >copy the bundled libraries into the pip source code and we can install just > >bundle

Re: [Distutils] New PEP : dependency specification

sorry, I feel like I have confirm my translation of your intro paragraph : ) maybe it will help some others... ended up with a hard dependency on this my understanding is that you were depending on having PEP426 metadata, e.g. for build_requires. since this PEP, as you say doesn't handle the

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 10:08, Donald Stufft wrote: ... > One possible solution to the above problems is to try and move away from using > ``pip``, ``pipX`` and ``pipX.Y`` and instead push people (and possibly > deprecate ``pip`` ) towards using ``python -m pip`` instead. This

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 5, 2015 at 8:04:41 PM, Robert Collins (robe...@robertcollins.net) wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 10:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > ... > > One possible solution to the above problems is to try and move away from > > using > > ``pip``, ``pipX`` and ``pipX.Y`` and instead push people (and

[Distutils] New PEP : dependency specification

Since we ended up with a hard dependency on this for the bootstrap thing (regardless of 'smaller step' or not) - I've broken this out of PEP 426, made it an encoding of the current status quo rather than an aspirational change. Since it has a dependency on markers, I had to choose whether to block

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 15:49, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: > > cat > /usr/bin/pip << EOF > python -m pip $@ > EOF > > Seriously - isn't the above entirely sufficient? > > > Since I don't think

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > I’m not really sure what the right answer is for something where the > particular version of Python you’re invoking it with (and that you’re > actually using Python) is important. python -m makes a lot of sense in that >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Why not? (Ignore the language I wrote my pseudocode in, an actual > thing would be a Python script that install would turn into a .exe) It was not clear, in the example that you gave, that I was supposed to

Re: [Distutils] [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > If ``pip install —build … —no-clean …`` worked to do incremental builds, > would that satisfy this use case? (without the —upgrade and —no-deps, > —no-deps is only needed because —upgrade and —upgrade is needed because of