Dave Peterson wrote:
I agree. Let's get that setuptools wiki started and start documenting
some of these ideas as a roadmap so that anyone who wants to help out
has an idea of what to work on, or factor into what they're currently
working on.
Anyway, since Enthought is already
Jeff Rush wrote:
Dave Peterson wrote:
I agree. Let's get that setuptools wiki started and start
documenting some of these ideas as a roadmap so that anyone who wants
to help out has an idea of what to work on, or factor into what
they're currently working on.
Anyway, since Enthought
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I'm actually happy to hear that there's this much energy available --
hopefully some of it can be harnessed towards positive solutions.
When I began developing setuptools, I often asked for the input of
packagers, developers, etc., through the distutils-sig... and
Jeff Rush writes:
I was in a Packaging BoF yesterday and, although not very relevant to the
packager bootstrap thread, Guido has asked me to post some of the concerns.
We did address many topics on both days, I added the following topics
which were addressed on the Friday BoF only, see
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- It would be useful if setuptools could handle separate build and
install steps like most configure/make/make install systems do. Access
to external resources should optionally be disabled during a build.
What's
Phillip J. Eby writes:
7. Many wanted to ability to install files anywhere in the install tree and
not just under the Python package. Under distutils this was possible
but
it was removed in setuptools for security reasons.
It wasn't security, it was manageability. Egg-based
The Python sandbox has a setuptools directory. Is this the canonical
location for the code?
Yes, it is.
If so, then anybody who has Python commit
privileges can commit to it and help further develop setuptools.
They can, but they shouldn't. Nothing should be committed there
without
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:30PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
People also want a greater variety of file_finders to be included with
setuptools. Instead of just CVS and SVN, they want it to comprehend
Mercurial, Bazaar, Git and so
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:30PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
People also want a greater variety of file_finders to be included with
setuptools. Instead of just CVS and SVN, they want it to comprehend
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
1. Many felt the existing dependency resolver was not correct. They wanted a
full tree traversal resulting in an intersection of all restrictions,
instead of a first-acceptable-solution approach taking now, which
We should probably move this off of Python-Dev, as we're getting into
deep details now...
At 07:27 PM 3/18/2008 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
If you really wanted to do a full-tree intersection, it seems to me
that the problem is detecting all the dependencies without having to
spend significant
At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
I was in a Packaging BoF yesterday and, although not very relevant to the
packager bootstrap thread, Guido has asked me to post some of the concerns.
The BoF drew about 15 people, many of whom were packagers for Red Hat, Ubuntu
and such. Everyone had
12 matches
Mail list logo
