Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset e13ff9fdfaf9 by Brett Cannon in branch 'default':
Issue #17845: Clarify the message setup.py prints upon successfully
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e13ff9fdfaf9
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Python tracker
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: needs patch - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
Brett Cannon added the comment:
First, thanks to Yogesh for writing a patch!
Second, I still think the second line should be The necessary bits to build
these optional modules were not found:. I purposefully like the vagueness of
it so we don't start going on about external vs. system,
Yogesh Chaudhari added the comment:
Patch to modify setup.py comments on successful build
--
keywords: +patch
nosy: +Yogesh.Chaudhari
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file30758/issue17845.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
assignee: - brett.cannon
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
___
Changes by Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +dbrecht
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
See also #13472 for a related discussion.
--
keywords: +easy
stage: - needs patch
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
New submission from Brett Cannon:
From:
Python build finished, but the necessary bits to build these modules were not
found:
ossaudiodev spwd
To find the necessary bits, look in setup.py in detect_modules() for the
module's name.
To:
Brett Cannon added the comment:
And just FYI, the pre-existing sentence already extends past 80 characters
(84), so the new length of 104 shouldn't be a concern. Although we could
re-format it into two lines::
Python build finished successfully!
The necessary bits to build these optional
Brett Cannon added the comment:
And I would probably go with finished successfully instead of successfully
finished.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
Éric Araujo added the comment:
Using two lines sounds good, especially if the last one printed is the positive
one (“build successful”).
Do you think there will be oppotions to backporting this?
--
nosy: +eric.araujo, ezio.melotti
___
Python
Éric Araujo added the comment:
opposition* :)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Brett Cannon added the comment:
Can't backport; someone might be relying on the output to verify their
automated build successfully built or something.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
Harrison Morgan added the comment:
As someone trying to get started contributing, I think this change makes it a
good deal clearer (although at this point I already know that those modules are
optional). The two line version looks better to me.
However, necessary bits still seems unclear.
Éric Araujo added the comment:
Brett: You’re right, too bad.
Harrison: “third-party packages” may be ambiguous (Python distributions vs.
system dependencies), and “required” may conflict with “optional”.
I propose:
Some optional modules were not built because of missing system files:
...
Brett Cannon added the comment:
I guess the question is whether all the code is third-party or simply optional
on some OS? Don't know the answer off the top of my head.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
Brett Cannon added the comment:
I personally don't like the message re-ordering. It feels like oops, you
didn't build everything. Hey everything built fine! It reads like there was a
bug and we accidentally interpreted it as a success.
And it isn't necessarily system files. I mean sqlite3 is
Éric Araujo added the comment:
I guess the question is whether all the code is third-party or simply
optional on some OS? Don't know the answer off the top of my head.
In my Debian world it’s typical to use only the official repos, there are no
third parties (except from the viewpoint of
Brett Cannon added the comment:
I use homebrew on OS X and have it in a non-standard location which is not a
systems directory (e.g. Developer/). When I hear system, I think /usr, etc.
which is not where people necessarily install third-party stuff.
--
Harrison Morgan added the comment:
Would external libraries work better? It's clearly not referring to Python
packages. And could be installed by a system package manager, or by yourself in
a non-standard location.
Python build finished successfully!
The necessary external libraries to build
Brett Cannon added the comment:
External libraries works for me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17845
___
___
Python-bugs-list
R. David Murray added the comment:
I'm afraid that External libraries is still misleading. On
package-manager-managed linux systems, it is often only the header files that
are missing, the libraries are there. It may well be that necessary bits is
the most informative choice :).
With two
Harrison Morgan added the comment:
Perhaps necessary bits really is the best way to put it. Here's one more
suggestion, though:
Python build finished successfully!
External libraries and/or header files needed to build these optional modules
were not found:
Dropping the definite article and
23 matches
Mail list logo
