Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: >> 2. ``pip install .`` silences build output, which may make sense for some >> usecases, but for numpy it just sits there for minutes with no

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > Interestingly, conda actually does "setup.py install" in the recipe for > numpy: > indeed -- many, many conda packages do setup.py install, whihc doesn't mean it's a good idea --personally, I'm trying hard to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

[Adding distutils-sig to the CC as a heads-up. The context is that numpy is looking at deprecating the use of 'python setup.py install' and enforcing the use of 'pip install .' instead, and running into some issues that will probably need to be addressed if 'pip install .' is going to become the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Warren Weckesser < >> warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 27,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Warren Weckesser < warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project >> source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Warren Weckesser < > warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Apparently it

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Oct 29, 2015 00:29, "Sandro Tosi" wrote: > > please, pretty please, do not disable setup.py install or at least > keep providing a way for distribution (Debian in this case) to be able > to build/install numpy in a temporary location for packaging reasons. > pip is not the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT) "Juan Nunez-Iglesias" wrote: > Can someone here who understands more about distribution maybe write a blog > post detailing: Hi, Olivier Grisel from sklearn gave a very good talk on this topic at PyCon, earlier this year:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

please, pretty please, do not disable setup.py install or at least keep providing a way for distribution (Debian in this case) to be able to build/install numpy in a temporary location for packaging reasons. pip is not the solution for us On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > please, pretty please, do not disable setup.py install or at least > keep providing a way for distribution (Debian in this case) to be able > to build/install numpy in a temporary location for packaging reasons. > pip is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Thanks, Jerome! I’ve added it to my to-watch list. It sounds really useful! Juan. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Jerome Kieffer wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:35:50 -0700 (PDT) > "Juan Nunez-Iglesias" wrote: >> Can someone here who understands

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > Is there a pip equivalent of "python setup.py develop"? Kinda answered this already when replying to Chuck, but: yes, it's `pip install -e ` (the -e is short for --editable), not that you would need it necessarily

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [...] > > I believe that this would also break both 'easy_install numpy', and > > attempts to install numpy via the setup_requires= argument to > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > [...] > > I gave it a shot the other day. Pip keeps a record of the path to the > repo > > and in order to cleanup I needed to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nathaniel

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Is there a pip equivalent of "python setup.py develop"? On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:33 PM Charles R Harris wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> [...] >> > I gave it a shot

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> [...] >> > I believe that this would also break both

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project > source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install > it is NOT to type > > python setup.py install # bad and broken! >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > [...] > I gave it a shot the other day. Pip keeps a record of the path to the repo > and in order to cleanup I needed to search out the file and delete the repo > path. There is probably a better way to do

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:44 AM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Oct 27, 2015 6:08 AM, wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > What's the equivalent of > > python setup.py build_ext --inplace > > It's > python setup.py build_ext --inplace > > ;-) > Ok, Sorry, I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Would this happen at the level of numpy's setup.py script or would it be implemented in numpy.distutils? I'm asking as the developer of a package that uses numpy.distutils to manage C extensions. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:59

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Oct 27, 2015 6:48 AM, "James E.H. Turner" wrote: >> >> Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project >> source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install >> it is NOT to type >> >>python setup.py install # bad and broken! >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Interestingly, conda actually does "setup.py install" in the recipe for numpy: https://github.com/conda/conda-recipes/blob/master/numpy-openblas/build.sh I'm not sure if this is the one they use to build the anaconda package, I think they have internal versions of most of the recipes on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Conda is for binary installs and largely targeted for end-users. This topic pertains to source installs, and is mostly relevant to developers, testers, and those who like to live on the bleeding edge of a particular project. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Edison Gustavo Muenz <

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Edison Gustavo Muenz < edisongust...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm sorry if this is out-of-topic, but I'm curious on why nobody mentioned > Conda yet. > Conda is a binary distribution system, whereas we are talking about installing from sources. You will need a way to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Oct 27, 2015 8:34 AM, "Nathan Goldbaum" wrote: > > Would this happen at the level of numpy's setup.py script or would it be implemented in numpy.distutils? I'm asking as the developer of a package that uses numpy.distutils to manage C extensions. NumPy's setup.py, no

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Can someone here who understands more about distribution maybe write a blog post detailing: - why these setup.py commands are bad - which alternative corresponds to each command and why it's better - where to find information about this For example, I had never heard of "twine", and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: Updating this list for comments made after I sent it and now that I've looked in more detail at what the less common commands do: > So if/when we accept the proposal in this thread, I'm thinking we should > make a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Oct 27, 2015 6:08 AM, wrote: >> > >> [...] >> > >> > >> > What's the equivalent of >> > python setup.py build_ext

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Thanks Ralf! The pointer to Python Packaging User Guide is already gold! (But a wider discussion e.g. in the NumPy repo, mirroring the docstring conventions, would also be good!) On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:35 PM,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > Can someone here who understands more about distribution maybe write a > blog post detailing: > > - why these setup.py commands are bad > - which alternative corresponds to each command and why it's better > -

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

I'm sorry if this is out-of-topic, but I'm curious on why nobody mentioned Conda yet. Is there any particular reason for not using it? On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:48 AM, James E.H. Turner wrote: > Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project >> source

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install it is NOT to type python setup.py install # bad and broken! but rather to type pip install . Though I haven't studied it exhaustively, it always

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: [...] > I believe that this would also break both 'easy_install numpy', and > attempts to install numpy via the setup_requires= argument to > setuptools.setup (because setup_requires= implicitly calls > easy_install).

[Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

Hi all, Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install it is NOT to type python setup.py install # bad and broken! but rather to type pip install . (I.e., pip install isn't just for packages on pypi