Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:52:34 -0400, "P.J. Eby" wrote: > Btw, every couple years or so I've sent out a call on the > distutils-SIG to try to get consensus on a format for the platform > tag information used by setuptools. (The first time was before > easy_install even existed.) Unfortunately,

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: > Has anyone considered the idea of having the string % operator > behave intelligently according to the contents of the format > string? > > If it contains one or more valid %-formats, use old-style > formatting; if it contains one or more valid {

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review.

Paul Moore wrote: linus and snoopy are hosts not networks, so making them IPv4Network classes seems wrong. I'd instinctively make them IPv4Address objects (which, I believe, would work). However, by allowing IPNetwork objects to also contain a host address, we seem to be officially sanctioning

Re: [Python-Dev] Announcing PEP 3136

Yuvgoog Greenle wrote: When is the else after a loop executed? > 1. When the loop isn't entered at all. 2. When the loop terminates through exhaustion of the list (does this include when the list was empty?) 3. When the loop didn't exit because of a break statement. 1 and 3 are just special

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Martin v. Löwis wrote: So if a decision was made to eventually remove % formatting, it would be reasonable to start migrating code to PEP 3101. However, no such decision has been made (and hopefully won't be throughout 3.x) If it's not done during 3.x, then by the time 4.x comes around, there

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review.

Peter Moody wrote: it's useful to take an address like 192.168.1.100/24 and derive a bunch of information from it (like the network address, broadcast address, containing supernets, etc), but still remember that the original address was 192.168.1.100. having a separate class or two for this is ov

Re: [Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting

Has anyone considered the idea of having the string % operator behave intelligently according to the contents of the format string? If it contains one or more valid %-formats, use old-style formatting; if it contains one or more valid {}-formats, use new-style formatting. Ambiguous cases could a

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

At 10:17 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: P.J. Eby wrote: > At 06:03 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> It goes a bit in the direction of what we had in mind with writing >> for our clients: a tool that looks at the Python installation and >> automatically finds/downloads/install

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

At 01:14 PM 10/6/2009 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: suggest nobody hold their breath waiting for setuptools 0.7. I've never suggested or implied otherwise. But, if you like Distribute so much, why not just add it directly to the stdlib? ;-) AFAIK, the only reason they've had multiple rele

Re: [Python-Dev] [New-bugs-announce] [issue7064] Python 2.6.3 / setuptools 0.6c9: extension module builds fail with KeyError

Here are three buildbot farms for three different projects that exercise various features of setuptools: build, install, sdist_dsc, bdist_egg, sdist, and various specific requirements that our projects have, such as the "Desert Island Build" in which setuptools is not allowed to download anything f

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

P.J. Eby wrote: > At 06:03 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> It goes a bit in the direction of what we had in mind with writing >> for our clients: a tool that looks at the Python installation and >> automatically finds/downloads/installs the right package from >> our website. Only that w

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

I'm saying that I don't expect setuptools 0.7 to appear before Tarek's Distribute is mature and in widespread use. IOW I support Tarek's fork and suggest nobody hold their breath waiting for setuptools 0.7. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > At 12:16 PM 10/6/2009 -0700, Guido van R

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

At 12:16 PM 10/6/2009 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: I think at this point the community should not be forced wait for you to get a new supply of round tuits. The wait has been too long already. You can stay on in an advisory role, but I don't think it's reasonable to block development or decisio

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

On 6 Oct, 2009, at 21:56, Olemis Lang wrote: Is it possible to fork `setuptools` somehow ? This way : Yes, see Ronald smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list Pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, P.J. Eby wrote: >> At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, P.J. Eby wrote: > At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: >>> >>> To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep >>> distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more, no less, and try and >>> keep that as uncontroversial as poss

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

P.J. Eby wrote: > At 03:18 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> Note how the package name is mangled... easy_install requires this. >> The file name also doesn't tell you that the above is for >> a UCS2 Python build. Again, easy_install fails with that information >> added to the "py2.6" ver

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

At 06:03 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Chris Withers wrote: > Well yeah, and the only sane way I can think to handle this is to have a > metadata file that gets uploaded with each distribution that covers all > these things (and the other things that other people need) and then have >

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

At 02:45 PM 10/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: To put this into a way that makes sense to me: I'm volunteering to keep distribute 0.6 and setuptools 0.6 in sync, no more, no less, and try and keep that as uncontroversial as possible, and get setuptools 0.6 releases out to match distribute 0.

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

At 03:18 PM 10/6/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Note how the package name is mangled... easy_install requires this. The file name also doesn't tell you that the above is for a UCS2 Python build. Again, easy_install fails with that information added to the "py2.6" version marker. Btw, every co

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Chris Withers wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> The complicated stuff does belong somewhere else, but the >> basic things need to go into the filename > > But everyone's basic things are different. The really basic stuff is the same for everyone since it's dictated by the way Python works on comp

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

M.-A. Lemburg wrote: Would it be possible to split just the distutils extensions into their own package and get that package as an sdist on PyPI? Nope. shame :-( The complicated stuff does belong somewhere else, but the basic things need to go into the filename But everyone's basic thin

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Chris Withers wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> mxSetup.py, the module implementing all our distutils extensions, >> is available in egenix-mx-base which is open source: >> >> http://www.egenix.com/products/python/mxBase/ > > I have memories of mxBase having a load of other stuff in it too? Ye

Re: [Python-Dev] Old libc's isspace() bug on FreeBSD brings back on Mac OS X?

I filed as issue7072. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 3 Oct, 2009, at 1:40, INADA Naoki wrote: > >>> Confirmed on 10.6 for 2.6.3 and 2.7a0. For 3.2a0 both asserts fail. >> >> OK. >> `s = '\xa0'` should be `s = b'\xa0'`. >> >> Should I file a bug? > > Please do, that

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:11 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Senthil Kumaran wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:43:22AM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: >>> it's revews like this that makes me wonder if releasing open source is >>> a good idea: >>>    no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provid

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

I'll make the argument that feedback is useful, comments are much less so and a lot more work. It would be more useful to allow package users post feedback, visible only to the package maintainer, and also add support for bugtracker links/etc. Is the intention of Pypi really to turn it into a soc

Re: [Python-Dev] Old libc's isspace() bug on FreeBSD brings back on Mac OS X?

On 3 Oct, 2009, at 1:40, INADA Naoki wrote: Confirmed on 10.6 for 2.6.3 and 2.7a0. For 3.2a0 both asserts fail. OK. `s = '\xa0'` should be `s = b'\xa0'`. Should I file a bug? Please do, that helps us remember that the issue exists. Ronald -- Naoki INADA __

Re: [Python-Dev] a new setuptools release?

Hi Phil, It's almost a week since I made this offer. I haven't heard anything from you. If I've missed anything please let me know and I'll track it down, otherwise I hope you can have a look at this some time soon. cheers, Chris Chris Withers wrote: P.J. Eby wrote: Here's what actually ha

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

M.-A. Lemburg wrote: mxSetup.py, the module implementing all our distutils extensions, is available in egenix-mx-base which is open source: http://www.egenix.com/products/python/mxBase/ I have memories of mxBase having a load of other stuff in it too? Would it be possible to split jus

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Barry Warsaw wrote: 2) PJE releases a new version of setuptools that fixes this problem. 3) We (a.k.a. Tarek with our blessing) hijacks the setuptools name (e.g. on cheeseshop) and releases a new version It's a shame you didn't suggest this sooner. It would have avoided the need for the sepe

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Chris Withers wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> We've implemented our own bdist_egg now which doesn't use setuptools >> and will start to ship eggs in addition to our prebuilt format with >> the next releases. > > Egg-cellent ;-) > > Any chance this tool is open source? Better yet, could it make i

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

Tarek Ziadé wrote: Notice that I am also doing nightly builds of Distutils that can be installed and tried in released version of Python, and that can be used instead of the Python's embed Distutils (see the installable tarballs at nightly.ziade.org). so maybe it's just a matter of continuous in

Re: [Python-Dev] "PIL" vs. "Imaging" (was Re: eggs now mandatory for pypi?)

Fredrik Lundh wrote: Looks like the quickest fix is to distribute two source packages, one built the traditional way to eliminate breakage for people using the current tarball layout, and one built with "sdist". Why the need for two? Or, asked differently, who would be hurt if the distribution

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Fredrik Lundh wrote: Oh, it was just yet another Zope developer behaving like an ass. Why am I not surprised? Actually Plohn, there aren't that many Zope developers left ;-) Chris - looking mournfully at his sig... -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

M.-A. Lemburg wrote: We've implemented our own bdist_egg now which doesn't use setuptools and will start to ship eggs in addition to our prebuilt format with the next releases. Egg-cellent ;-) Any chance this tool is open source? Better yet, could it make its way into distutils asap? Chris

Re: [Python-Dev] eggs now mandatory for pypi?

Nick Coghlan wrote: Really? I can understand package owners not being able to add recommendations for their own packages, but if they can't add comments how are they meant to correct misunderstandings or redirect inappropriate messages to the correct forums? Indeed, yet another reason I would l

Re: [Python-Dev] Package install failures in 2.6.3

2009/10/6 P.J. Eby : > At 02:22 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >> Setuptools development has been discontinued for a year, and does >> patches on Distutils code. Some of these patches are sensitive to any >> change >> made on Distutils, wether those changes are internal or not. > > Setup

Re: [Python-Dev] Help needed for tar archive creation with changed UID/GID

bheemesh v wrote: Hello, I am a newbie to this mailing list, i have seen in some mail discussions about a tar archive creation by forcibly setting the UID/GID to a specific user (say root). Hello Bheemesh, This mailing list is for the development of Python, not for developing *with* Python

Re: [Python-Dev] Help needed for tar archive creation with changed UID/GID

bheemesh v wrote: > I am a newbie to this mailing list, i have seen in some mail discussions > about a tar archive creation by forcibly setting the UID/GID to a specific > user (say root). Note that this is the mailing list about core development of the CPython interpreter, not about general Pytho

[Python-Dev] Help needed for tar archive creation with changed UID/GID

Hello, I am a newbie to this mailing list, i have seen in some mail discussions about a tar archive creation by forcibly setting the UID/GID to a specific user (say root). Te code mentioned goes like this: tar = tarfile.open("foo.tar.gz", "w:gz") for filename in filenames: tarinfo = tar.gettar

Re: [Python-Dev] summary of transitioning from % to {} formatting

Vinay Sajip wrote: > Both of these approaches will also work for {}-formatting. The present thread > really started out with a view to suggesting that the stdlib start adopting > {}-format as "native", rather than %-format. > > Would it be helpful if I added a section to the Python docs about how