Re: [Distutils] How to specify dependencies in Python

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 7:59 AM, Thomas Güttler > wrote: > > I think requirements.txt should be the result of some kind of > Continous-Integration run. > If all tests are successful, then requirements.txt should be created with > "pip freeze". > > This means,

[Distutils] Setuptools moving away from self install - testing needed

In [setuptools 581](https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/581), I’ve drafted a version of setuptools that essentially drops support for self installation, relying on pip install as the only supported mechanism for installing setuptools, both in the ez_setup.py bootstrap (for which there’s a

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

On 17/01/17 00:22, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Robert's referring to the fact that publishing a project sdist on PyPI can > be quite helpful to redistributors, even if "pip install zato" just > installs some helper libraries (or nothing at all) rather than a full Zato > instance. > > Publishing at

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

On 17 Jan 2017 09:20, "Dariusz Suchojad" wrote: On 16/01/17 23:10, Robert Collins wrote: > So, this proposition didn't really make sense to me. Folk like Linux > distros will want the source, and you don't need to upload wheels :- > setup.py could quite reasonably limit itself to

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

So, this proposition didn't really make sense to me. Folk like Linux distros will want the source, and you don't need to upload wheels :- setup.py could quite reasonably limit itself to software installation, vs configuration. Plenty of pip installable packages are not entirely ready to use after

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

On 16/01/17 23:10, Robert Collins wrote: > So, this proposition didn't really make sense to me. Folk like Linux > distros will want the source, and you don't need to upload wheels :- > setup.py could quite reasonably limit itself to software installation, vs > configuration. Plenty of pip

Re: [Distutils] RFC 2: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

That depends on policy. I don't want to go too far down the trap of privileging my specific use case, but as a company that vendors *everything* we depend on, our accesses to PyPi for dependencies are pretty rare, which means we might run afoul of these changes when ingesting packages. I'm going

Re: [Distutils] RFC 2: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Chris Rose wrote: > The tricky part there is that "being used" is a tough concept to define. > Over what time period? What amount of downloading counts as "used"? > > I believe these concepts need to be made very clear, because the impact of >

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

If you have a non-release release with some description text and a home-page that points to where active development is going on (that could constitute "functionality" in a non-code way), I think that should preempt a reasonable person (which is hopefully a superset of maintainers) from deleting

Re: [Distutils] RFC 2: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

The tricky part there is that "being used" is a tough concept to define. Over what time period? What amount of downloading counts as "used"? I believe these concepts need to be made very clear, because the impact of exploitative replacement is pretty severe if it is made to happen. On Mon, Jan

Re: [Distutils] RFC 2: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Chris Rose wrote: > > (copied from an email I erroneously sent to python-ideas@) > > I think the criteria for reuse of a name must include usage limits; if the > package is being downloaded on a steady basis by accounts that can't be shown

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

On 13/01/17 19:08, Lukasz Langa wrote: > Invalid projects > > > A project published on the Package Index meeting ANY of the following > is considered invalid and will be removed from the Index: [...] > * project is name squatting (package has no functionality or is > empty);

Re: [Distutils] RFC 2: PEP 541 - Package Index Name Retention

(copied from an email I erroneously sent to python-ideas@) I want to address one gap in the PEP regarding reclaiming abandoned names: Version reuse. The problem with reusing names is that existing applications or installations that reference the old one, unless they pin the version name

Re: [Distutils] How to specify dependencies in Python

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Güttler < guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote: > > > Am 13.01.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Jim Fulton: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Thomas Güttler < >> guettl...@thomas-guettler.de > >> wrote: >> >> What is

Re: [Distutils] How to specify dependencies in Python

On 16 January 2017 at 15:59, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Thank you for your explanation. For me this means, I should tell the > maintainer > that a library should specify it's dependencies via install_requires. Well yes, but that doesn't mean the quoted comment from

Re: [Distutils] How to specify dependencies in Python

Am 13.01.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Jim Fulton: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Thomas Güttler > wrote: What is an application for you? Another way to think about this, FWIW, is to distinguish between the "whole system"

Re: [Distutils] How to specify dependencies in Python

Am 13.01.2017 um 14:07 schrieb Paul Moore: On 13 January 2017 at 12:23, Thomas Güttler wrote: Am 12.01.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Nick Coghlan: On 12 January 2017 at 22:04, Thomas Güttler wrote: I came across a python library which