On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:00:50 +1100, Ben Finney
wrote:
> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
> is no need to consider Python language syntax in defining them.
Well I don't know how you can say that if it is python developers
to which all this effort is targeted
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> I am now rewriting the relevant section of the PEP with the examples
> we discussed in this thread, but the operators should stay the same as
> they were initially: "<", ">", "<=", ">=", "==" and "!=".
Thank you, this is the clear and simple path and keeps the dependency
de
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>>> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
>>> is no need to consider Python language syntax
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
>> is no need to consider Python language syntax in defining them.
>
> Agreed.
>
> We're also not going to be
David Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:07:32 +, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
Specifies a range of python versions.
So this would work for Python 2.7 but *not* 2.7.1? Or does 2.7
implicitly mean a range of all Python 2.7 versions?
Yes. 2.7 would
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> The dependency declarations are *not* Python language syntax, and there
> is no need to consider Python language syntax in defining them.
Agreed.
We're also not going to be writing an operating system with them; just simple
version range state
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
[..]
>> Requires-Dist: zope.interface (3.1.0) ==> only 3.1.0
>
> For completeness, isn't this really "any versino which starts with
> 3.1.0, not including post- or pre- releases"? That particular pacakge
> doesn't use more than a third version
David Lyon writes:
> The counter argument for 'cloning' the linux packaging system is that
> most of the representations come from a C perspective. Because of the
> fact that Linux is predominantly a C product.
>
> Since Python isn't C, and doesn't come from C, then one could argue
> that using s
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:55:17 -0500, "R. David Murray"
wrote:
> What about specifying that the package works only with, say, 2.6.2 or
> earlier (because of some problem introduced by 2.6.3)? That could get
> pretty darn verbose. (Also remember we aren't just talking about the
> syntax for Python
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:21:54 + (UTC), Antoine Pitrou
wrote:
>> > Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
>
> Why not drop ranges as well as operators and simply use commas?
> The above would be rewritten as:
>
> Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
Firstly, I find your notation proposition to be entirely wor
R. David Murray bitdance.com> writes:
>
> > Why not drop ranges as well as operators and simply use commas?
> > The above would be rewritten as:
> >
> > Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
> >
> > This would prevent the ambiguity on the inclusive or exclusive nature
of the
> > upper bound of the r
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:21:54 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> David Lyon preisshare.net> writes:
> >
> > Requires a particular python version.
> >
> > > Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
>
> Why not drop ranges as well as operators and simply use commas?
> The above would be rewritten as:
>
> Requires
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
David Lyon preisshare.net> writes:
Requires a particular python version.
> Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
Why not drop ranges as well as operators and simply use commas?
The above would be rewritten as:
Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
This would prevent the ambiguity on th
David Lyon preisshare.net> writes:
>
> Requires a particular python version.
>
> > Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
Why not drop ranges as well as operators and simply use commas?
The above would be rewritten as:
Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
This would prevent the ambiguity on the inclusive or ex
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:07:32 +, Michael Foord
wrote:
>>> Requires-Python: 2.5:2.7
>>
>> Specifies a range of python versions.
>>
> So this would work for Python 2.7 but *not* 2.7.1? Or does 2.7
> implicitly mean a range of all Python 2.7 versions?
Yes. 2.7 would mean all 2.7 version
On 28/12/2009 22:57, David Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
On distutils-sig, a vocal fraction seems to think otherwise. From my
short interaction there, I now think that comparison operators are
indeed hard to use, and that the concept of a half-open
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
> On distutils-sig, a vocal fraction seems to think otherwise. From my
> short interaction there, I now think that comparison operators are
> indeed hard to use, and that the concept of a half-open interval,
> and how you can use relatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> 2009/12/28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>>> I think Antoine's proposal is good (using the range when "2.5" is
>>> used, and using 2.5.0 when explicitely
>>> needed), and fixes Martin's concerns.
>>>
>>> So I would be in favor of removing ~=
2009/12/28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>
>> Does that mean we should add "or"?
>>
>> Requires-Python: 2.5 or 2.6
>
> It would be redundant to have it, since you can also write
>
> Requires-Python: >=2.5, <2.7
>
>> Should we also use "and" instead of ","?
>>
>> Requires-Python: >= 2.5 and < 2.6
>
>
Antoine Pitrou writes:
>
> > > How can they know that they depend on "a quirk in behaviour of an older
> > > version" if a newer version hasn't been released? This sounds bogus.
> >
> > Of course a newer version has been released. Who said it hasn't been?
> > Eg, the discussion of <=2.5.
> > How can they know that they depend on "a quirk in behaviour of an older
> > version" if a newer version hasn't been released? This sounds bogus.
>
> Of course a newer version has been released. Who said it hasn't been?
> Eg, the discussion of <=2.5. Hasn't 2.6 been released? Or am I
> ha
Lennart Regebro writes:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > This == operator is fairly common in Debian. For example, the
> > apache2 package installed on my system specifies
>
> Oh, absolutely, but that's when you specify interdependencies between
> packages. Nobody ma
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> This == operator is fairly common in Debian. For example, the apache2
>> package installed on my system specifies
>
> Oh, absolutely, but that's when you specify interdependencies
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> -1. This looks like typos the developer made on his versions definitions.
>
> Nah.
>
>> And if not, is subject to errors by forgetting dashes or dots.
>
> Eh, yeah but that goes for ANY
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> -1. This looks like typos the developer made on his versions definitions.
Nah.
> And if not, is subject to errors by forgetting dashes or dots.
Eh, yeah but that goes for ANY syntax.
Having the same syntax as for package specifications does m
On 12/28/2009 5:42 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> So specifying 2.5 would be a short-hand for *what*?
>>
>> 2.5 would be a shorthand for 2.5.x. So, equivalent to : >=2.5.0, < 2.6.0
>
> Ok, so it's not a shorthand for a single operator anymore, but for a
> more complex term. Fine with me.
>
>> 2.5
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:27, wrote:
>> What about going even more simple...
>>
>> Requires-Python: 2.5..3 3.1..
>
> Doh! Of course. Works for me. In fact, the dots could be dashes as well.
>
> Requires-Python: 2.5-3 3.1-
>
> Commas, sp
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> This == operator is fairly common in Debian. For example, the apache2
> package installed on my system specifies
Oh, absolutely, but that's when you specify interdependencies between
packages. Nobody makes a Python package for generic use
2009/12/28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
[..]
>> 2.5.0 would be the notation required to describe this specific micro version.
>
> I think it would be a shorthand for >=2.5.0, <2.5.1, right?
>
> Or are you saying that specifying a version is sometimes a shorthand for
> a range, and sometimes a shorthand for
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:27, wrote:
> What about going even more simple...
>
> Requires-Python: 2.5..3 3.1..
Doh! Of course. Works for me. In fact, the dots could be dashes as well.
Requires-Python: 2.5-3 3.1-
Commas, spaces, semicolons, whatever. We could allow:
Requires-Python: 2.5-3 3.1-
> Another penny dropped when it comes to version specs.
>
> Should 2.5 mean 2.5.0 only, or 2.5.*. Well... why would you ever need
> to specify 2.5.0 only. That's a nonsense specification.
>
> "My project requires Python 2.5.0, but doesn't work with 2.5.1". Huh!?
> Well, then fix it, goofball. :)
>> So specifying 2.5 would be a short-hand for *what*?
>
> 2.5 would be a shorthand for 2.5.x. So, equivalent to : >=2.5.0, < 2.6.0
Ok, so it's not a shorthand for a single operator anymore, but for a
more complex term. Fine with me.
> 2.5.0 would be the notation required to describe this specif
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Another penny dropped when it comes to version specs.
>
> Should 2.5 mean 2.5.0 only, or 2.5.*. Well... why would you ever need
> to specify 2.5.0 only. That's a nonsense specification.
>
> "My project requires Python 2.5.0, but doesn't wo
Hi Len,
> Another penny dropped when it comes to version specs.
Pennies are good. They build value.
> With examples being:
>
> Requires-Python: [2.5.2:3]; [3.1:]
What about going even more simple...
Requires-Python: 2.5..3 3.1..
If we use double-dots to replace colons, the ..
will transl
Another penny dropped when it comes to version specs.
Should 2.5 mean 2.5.0 only, or 2.5.*. Well... why would you ever need
to specify 2.5.0 only. That's a nonsense specification.
"My project requires Python 2.5.0, but doesn't work with 2.5.1". Huh!?
Well, then fix it, goofball. :)
2.5 can mean
2009/12/28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I think Antoine's proposal is good (using the range when "2.5" is
>> used, and using 2.5.0 when explicitely
>> needed), and fixes Martin's concerns.
>>
>> So I would be in favor of removing ~= and using Antoine's rule;
>
> So specifying 2.5 would be a short-hand fo
> I think Antoine's proposal is good (using the range when "2.5" is
> used, and using 2.5.0 when explicitely
> needed), and fixes Martin's concerns.
>
> So I would be in favor of removing ~= and using Antoine's rule;
So specifying 2.5 would be a short-hand for *what*?
Regards,
Martin
___
> Point of order: what is the point of sending the discussion off to the
> distutils SIG if we are just going to bikeshed it (again!) here.
Bike-shedding it here is indeed inappropriate. If the PEP had listed all
possible arguments that can come up in this discussion, and the
corresponding counte
> And IMO the choice of "~=" or "=~" for the range match should be
> avoided, since that looks like the regexp search operator in Perl, and
> there "~= 3" would match "3", "3.0.4", and "2.3.5". The next obvious
> interpretation is "fuzzy match", but that doesn't have an obvious,
> more specific me
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
[..]
>> So, if no one object, I propose to continue this thread about the way
>> range should be compared, to see if we meet a consensus quite soon. If
>> not, I guess we can go back to distutils-SIG and invite people over
>> there, as we did for
> It seems to me that all this version range talk relates pretty
> directly to PEP 386.
>
> The Python version numbers themselves are the simplest type of
> "Normalized Version"s, and since comparisons of "NormalizedVersion"s
> are defined in PEP 386, and that's really all we're talking about
> he
> Does that mean we should add "or"?
>
> Requires-Python: 2.5 or 2.6
It would be redundant to have it, since you can also write
Requires-Python: >=2.5, <2.7
> Should we also use "and" instead of ","?
>
> Requires-Python: >= 2.5 and < 2.6
Perhaps. I think the Linux packaging formats u
Tarek Ziadé writes:
> What happened is that Martin came late in the discussions in
> Distutils-SIG after I've forwarded the final mail in Catalog-SIG and
> after I did send it here (the mail where I said "Here's the mail I'll
> send to python-dev for PEP 345, if anyone sees a problem or something
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Instead, the default should be `=='. That is, `Requires-Python: 3'
> > should be equivalent to `Requires-Python: ==3'; and only "3" or "3.0" or
> > "3.0.0" etc. will match. I maintain that is what most people
Antoine Pitrou writes:
>
> > And in fact this case is often more the important one. Packages that
> > depend on having a *recent* version of python will often crash
> > quickly, before doing permanent damage, when an undefined syntax,
> > function, or method is invoked, while packages that d
david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
>>> No application developer will quickly figure out what a tilde means.
>>> Maybe
>>> it means 'roughly', but it requires too much thought and is ambiguous.
>>> 2.5
>>> is not roughly 2.5.2. It is the same exactly.
>>>
>>> Before we had : Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:03 AM, MRAB wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>>
>>> No application developer will quickly figure out what a tilde means.
>>> Maybe
>>> it means 'roughly', but it requires too much thought and is ambiguous.
>>> 2.5
>>> is not roughly 2.5.2. It is the same exactly.
>>>
>>>
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 7:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> Tarek Ziadé gmail.com> writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if "2.5"
was just "
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
>> wrote:
>> [..]
>>> Tarek,
>>>
>>> I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined with the newly
>>> introduc
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:37, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> If the first x.y release were called x.y.0, (does not sys.version include
>> 0?) then x.y would unambiguously mean the series.
>
> Yeah, well, although sys.version includes the zero, not
Hi Stephen,
> BTW, *all* of the Python applications I really care about make a point
> of specifying a range of versions they work with (or bundle a
> particular version).
Yes, well that was my point exactly.
If opinion is against commas, then we can take them out.
That would give us something
51 matches
Mail list logo
