I'll probably realize what stupid thing I'm doing as soon
as I send this message, but oh well if that's what it takes ... ;)
I want to install setuptools on a centos 4.3 system, for which
the system python is 2.4 (ugh) so I've compiled and installed
python 2.6 into /usr/local. When I try
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I wish there was a humorous, ironic name for the service that is evocative of
the Python language's original conceit. Something that at first glance says
we should have lots of tasty morsels to offer here, then oh, sorry, the
cat's eaten them. The irony of course being that
Brad Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
As for projects: fine with me; PyPI would then be the Python Project
Index.
+1
If this gets general agreement, there are probably some places where
the word 'package' should be replaced with the word
sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that splitting
package storage and pointers to off-repository storage (for those who
don't upload to PyPI)
metadata about the stored packages
tools for creating stored packages
tools for retrieving stored packages
Trent Mick wrote:
I've been thinking from the p.o.v. of what releases get up on PyPI
and I gather that those releases are the ones that lead to potential
packaging in RPM and .deb repositories.
I think that is not necessarily true -- I seem to recall some discussion
in the PyCon sessions
Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:33:54 -0400, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com
wrote:
At 09:45 AM 5/22/2009 -0400, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
Hello all,
Prior to eggs, if I wanted to have debug and non-debug versions of an
extension module available, I could build and install
(And now for a comment that's not about the site certificate! :)
Question 8 provides 5 options, none of which apply to me, and no
option to comment without choosing one.
Question 7 does the right thing by providing an option to give
another answer in the comment field.
I will wait until that
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 09:41:08PM -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
These are all broken and you should report bugs on them. I have
reported many for Ubuntu. A system application should only ever
depend on the system Python (or interpreter), never on the whims
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:59:21AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 12, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
I used to always set up my own Python[s] in /usr/local
and put that first in my PATH, but I have gotten lazy lately, and
sometimes it will bite me
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 12, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
I used to always set up my own Python[s] in /usr/local
and put that first in my PATH, but I have gotten lazy lately, and
sometimes it will bite me. ;)
On Debian
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:16:57AM -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
On Debian and derivatives (e.g. Ubuntu) you might have even more fun.
They put /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages on the sys.path *of the
system python*! This means that you can break your system
Stephen Waterbury wrote:
Oops, my email client doesn't detect unbalanced parens -- typo here
(what I get for too-complicated paren/double-dash-mixing ;):
optionally install, and which go into /usr. And the system package
manager -- e.g., apt on Debian/Ubuntu systems) would have all its usual
Greg Ewing wrote:
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
a second Python
needs to be installed on top of the system Python to add modules to it.
Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed,
one for use by the system and the other for users to add
things to. Or at least be set up so that it
Ben Finney wrote:
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
a second Python needs to be installed on top of the system Python
to add modules to it.
Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed, one for use
by the system and the other for users to add things to.
Stephen Waterbury wrote:
Have you read my proposal? It's in the message posted by me to this
thread at 12:31 PM today.
That's not a good way to reference it, of course, so here it is:
Definitions:
system Python -- the Python (and its site-pkgs, etc.) that any Python
scripts used by the OS
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
... if tools exist and are distributed for such a [PEP 262] database,
and *everybody* agrees to use it as an officially-blessed standard,
then it should be possible for setuptools to co-exist with that
framework, and we're all happy campers.
I like this idea and the 3
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:09 PM 7/24/2007 -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
Actually, I wasn't confused. :) I'd suggest a convention that allows
a distribution title (e.g., Zope, Twisted, etc.) and a
distribution name that would simply be the name of the
distribution's top-level package
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 09:56 PM 7/24/2007 -0400, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
I thought the point was to come up with a new distribution naming
convention,
Nope, just clarify the rules for *distinguishing* projects by name --
a much less ambitious goal, since it's pretty easy to do
18 matches
Mail list logo
