On 14 Mar, 2012, at 18:42, Chris Barker wrote:
Universal binaries (i.e. more than one architecture in one binary)
have never been properly supported by binary eggs/setuptools. I think
it may be as simple as the naming convention -- the binary would be
named according to the machine it was
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:19:45PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 19:04,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:19:45PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29
2012/3/15 PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a binary egg available, how do I know whether it's needed
without trying a source install and seeing if it works?
The egg will have a platform string in its name in
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the
filename if it matters?
isn't that supposed to be the source release ?
Yes, basically - at
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Why would someone create a binary release when
it's pure Python ?
There are a lot of users (Windows and Mac anyway) that like a nice
point+click installer, and don't know (and shouldn't have to) whether
there is any compiled code in
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the
filename if it matters?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Please can we have a new format
On 14 March 2012 02:50, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
In terms of distribution format, this sounds great; I think a clean
break and new format that existing systems will just naturally ignore is
the way to go.
Agreed. I created a patch a while ago for a bdist_simple format,
which has
On 3/13/12 7:50 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
On 03/13/2012 05:18 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
1) setuptools eggs
- Have to support legacy meta-data format
2) bdist
- Need to add python version for:
- compatibility info
- also provides delimeter between version # and platform
On 14 March 2012 02:56, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
distutils' bdist is broken (the name of the file does not contain the py
version...)
?? bdist_wininst filenames contain the python version when it matters
(i.e., when there are binaries in the file).
One thing I dislike about eggs is
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:00 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
...
I'm not sure what else you'll actually gain by introducing
a new format. IIUC, what new-style metadata egg files lack can be
determined programmatically from their contents or the existing metadata
files, so there
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 02:50, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
In terms of distribution format, this sounds great; I think a clean
break and new format that existing systems will just naturally ignore is
the way to go.
On 14 March 2012 15:43, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
My main issue is that I think we need a standard binary format that
isn't system dependent.
I didn't intend bdist_simple to be platform-specific. It's based on
bdist_wininst certainly, but I stripped out all the platform-specific
bits (the
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I dislike about eggs is that the filename includes a Python
version for all eggs, even when the package is pure python. I know
eggs contain .pyc files (which are version specific) but IMO they
shouldn't.
Your
On 03/14/2012 09:33 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
Again, this raises the question: is .pbd a load-and-go format for
distributing and *running* Python code, or is it just a way to bundle
compiled extensions along with source code to simplify installation? I
worry that some folks in the conversation may
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:00 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
...
I'm not sure what else you'll actually gain by introducing
a new format. IIUC, what new-style metadata egg files lack can be
determined
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's reasonable to argue that this is only a windows problem.
no -- it's a Mac OS-X problem, too. Indeed, a harder one, due to:
A) The Mac platform now has 4! architectures: PPC, PPC64, x86,
intel64. Granted, PPC is almost
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 16:58, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
Right. It is only a replacement for use of eggs as a binary
distribution
(not
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
Universal binaries (i.e. more than one architecture in one binary)
have never been properly supported by binary eggs/setuptools. I think
it may be as simple as the naming convention -- the binary would be
named
On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
1) there are folks that want to do a little python that don't have any
experience or interest in the whole C building thing -- and to get the
compiler on the Mac, you need to register with Mac Developer
connection, then download a MASSIVE
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic zvez...@computer.org wrote:
1) there are folks that want to do a little python that don't have any
experience or interest in the whole C building thing -- and to get the
compiler on the Mac, you need to register with Mac Developer
connection,
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the
filename if it matters?
isn't that supposed to be the source release ?
Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand.
Why would someone create a binary release
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a binary egg available, how do I know whether it's needed
without trying a source install and seeing if it works?
The egg will have a platform string in its name in that case. Otherwise,
it'll be just
Sometimes, binary distributions are useful. This is especially true
for Windows and maybe Macs. (They may also be useful for other
platforms in closed environments, where the shortcomings of
distutils platform definitions aren't such a problem.)
Distutils2/packaging (d2/p :) doesn't support the
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
3) New egg-like format pbd
- Arrange suffix so ignored by setuptools/distribute
- new-style meta data
- would be a zip file
- Essentially, .egg format with new-style meta data and different
suffix.
FWIW, if
26 matches
Mail list logo
