On 4 August 2018 at 23:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 13:31, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> For the record: my post wasn't about *building* a wheel, but about
>> *installing* a wheel.
>
> But given that the current behaviour of pip is to copy the timestamps
> held in the wheel[1], where
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 13:31, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-04 14:02, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 4, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> Whether timestamps are
> >> preserved by the wheel building process depends on the build system -
> >> so the question boils down to "does
On 2018-08-04 14:02, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
Whether timestamps are
preserved by the wheel building process depends on the build system -
so the question boils down to "does setup.py bdist_wheel preserve
timestamps?" in the case of the setuptools
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> Whether timestamps are
> preserved by the wheel building process depends on the build system -
> so the question boils down to "does setup.py bdist_wheel preserve
> timestamps?" in the case of the setuptools backend - which is really a
>
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 12:25, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-04 13:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Can you give a
> > specific example of an end to end process where the packaging
> > toolchain's current behaviour gives demonstrably the wrong result?
>
> Yes I can. I will work out a detailed
The fact that installs from wheels don't preserve timestamps is a very
good argument that it's OK to NOT preserve timestamps in general. Any
package which would rely on preserving timestamps would already be
broken when installing using a wheel.
By the way, initially I thought that this was a
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 10:05, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-04 10:34, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Jeroen seemed to say he agreed with this, but
> > I'm not sure I see how that matches his stated requirement for
> > installs to not preserve timestamps...
>
> The way how pip currently works (I
On 2018-08-04 10:34, Paul Moore wrote:
Jeroen seemed to say he agreed with this, but
I'm not sure I see how that matches his stated requirement for
installs to not preserve timestamps...
The way how pip currently works (I assume that this stays the case) is
that it uses a temporary build
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 09:18, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 08:35, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> >
> >> So both are different issues, and I agree with both: during the source
> >> extraction and build process, you want to preserve
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 08:35, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
>> So both are different issues, and I agree with both: during the source
>> extraction and build process, you want to preserve timestamps as much as
>> possible. But for the installation,
On 2018-08-04 00:02, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
I'm not sure how relevant it is, but this issue was recently filed on
pip's issue tracker ("Reproducible installs"):
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/5648
This seems to be about preserving timestamps when extracting wheel files.
There is also an
I'm not sure how relevant it is, but this issue was recently filed on
pip's issue tracker ("Reproducible installs"):
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/5648
Is there any overlap?
There is also an older (closed) pip issue that might be relevant
("Preserving timestamps on copy"):
12 matches
Mail list logo