On Mon, Aug 22, 2016, at 07:15 AM, Sylvain Corlay wrote:
> I find this worrying that the main arguments to not include a patch
> would be that
>
> - this part of the standard library is not very maintained (things
>don't get merged)
> - earlier versions of won't have it
Would it make sense t
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
> On top of that there are technical reasons (don't want to test
> combinations of python + setuptools that both change per release) and
> organizational ones (distutils maintenance is terrible, many simple bugfix
> patches don't get m
On Aug 21, 2016 9:18 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
[...]
> By contrast, I *know* Linux distros are in the habit of pulling
> release tarballs from PyPI and feeding them directly into their
> release pipelines, so the potential for unanticipated breakage seems
> much higher there, and more likely to
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> We’re reaching a point where *some* projects are announcing the end of
> Python 2 support as of a certain date, but let us not forget that Python
> 2.7 is still an order of magnitude more than any other version of Python in
> terms of downlo
On 22 Aug 2016 4:18 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
>
> Once we have a universal default, unilaterally changing that default
> gets easier, rather than harder - the main precedent being set here is
> that we *don't want* the default format to be platform dependent, we
> want there to be just one defau
On 22 Aug 2016 4:18 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> On 21 August 2016 at 18:21, Robert Collins
wrote:
> > tl;dr: I think standardising on .tar.gz would be a rather shortsighted
> > thing to do, given how many Windows users Python has and how much of a
> > different supporting .zip makes for workflo
We’re reaching a point where *some* projects are announcing the end of Python 2
support as of a certain date, but let us not forget that Python 2.7 is still an
order of magnitude more than any other version of Python in terms of downloads
from PyPI.
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Sylvain Corlay
Although we are reaching a tipping point where a lot of projects are
announcing the end of Python 2 support as of a certain date.
Whatever is in the latest version of Python 3 when it will be considered a
sane decision to have a Python 3-only library will be considered standard.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2
On 22 August 2016 at 02:38, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> I think shelling out is a reasonable approach for certain operations if the
> tool you're shelling out to is designed for it. When we write command-line
> programs, we often think about users typing in commands at a terminal, and
> design things
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016, at 05:19 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'm open to shelling out, but pessimistic that it will turn out well.
> I started with that approach initially with easy_install and it fell
> apart quickly. But when we get into it... who knows?
I think shelling out is a reasonable approach
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> I'm open to shelling out, but pessimistic that it will turn out well. I
> started with that approach initially with easy_install and it fell apart
> quickly. But when we get into it...
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> I'm open to shelling out, but pessimistic that it will turn out well. I
> started with that approach initially with easy_install and it fell apart
> quickly. But when we get into it... who knows?
Shelling out is currently the only expose
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Wes Turner wrote:
...
> I may be optimistic, but should adding buildout support for wheel be more
> complicated than shelling out to pip with the correct, uhm, --prefix etc?
>
I'm open to shelling out, but pessimistic that it will turn out well. I
started with th
On 21 August 2016 at 18:21, Robert Collins wrote:
> tl;dr: I think standardising on .tar.gz would be a rather shortsighted
> thing to do, given how many Windows users Python has and how much of a
> different supporting .zip makes for workflow on that platform - with
> no negative impacts on any ot
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 August 2016 at 05:46, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> >> > I have the impression that uninstalling things can be
> >> > problematic, but maybe that's been fixed.
> >>
> >> Uninstallation
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Sylvain Corlay wrote:
>
> With this reasoning, nothing should ever be added to the standard library.
Packaging is a bit different than other things because the network effect is
much more prominent. There’s no real way to say, install a backport if you need
one
Targz is about 3/4 the size of zip for a bag of Python dists I tested. Zip
inside a second zip would provide the same compression. No word on the
Weissman score.
Tar isn't exactly a single format. For Unicode try POSIX-1.2001 aka pax
format tar. Python defaults to gnutar. Zip has good Unicode supp
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 20 August 2016 at 22:31, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Wheels are a pretty simple and straightforward format. They've got some
>> metadata, and then the are a set of directories with labels attached: "this
>> directory needs to go on sys.path",
On 21 August 2016 at 09:21, Robert Collins wrote:
>
> tl;dr: I think standardising on .tar.gz would be a rather shortsighted
> thing to do, given how many Windows users Python has and how much of a
> different supporting .zip makes for workflow on that platform - with
> no negative impacts on any
On 20 August 2016 at 22:31, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Wheels are a pretty simple and straightforward format. They've got some
> metadata, and then the are a set of directories with labels attached: "this
> directory needs to go on sys.path", "this directory has scripts that should
> have shebang fi
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > Having the `has_flag` in a different location from `has_function` would
> be weird in my opinion.
>
> I think the point though is that in your proposal, has_flag is in
> distutils 3.6, but has_function is in distutils 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3,
On 21 August 2016 at 15:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 August 2016 at 08:40, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we're going through all this trouble, isn't it better just to jump to
>>> .zip files like every other distribution format in existence?
>>
>> Yes. :-)
>
> zip is popular
22 matches
Mail list logo