Paul Moore wrote:
> On 20/03/2008, zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll chime in here, too. I really want to like
> setuptools/easy_install, but I don't. I'll try to be specific in my
> reasons, in the hope that they can be addressed. I know some of these
> are "known about", but one of my meta
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> specific code in PyPI. Are developers for Python 3.x encouraged in
>> 3.x guidelines to release 'fat' distributions that combine 2.x and 3.x
>> usable versions?
>
> Passive voice is misleading here: encouraged by whom?
"... encouraged in __3.x guidelines__ to ...": I
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
> I don't see the need to for PyPI. For packages (or "distributions",
> to avoid confusion with Python packages), I see two options:
>
> a) provide a single release that supports both 2.x and 3.x.
> b) switch to Python 3 at some point (i.e. burn your bridges).
>
> You se
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:57 AM 3/19/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
>> Are you open to giving certain others patch view/commit privileges to
>> setuptools?
>
> Jim Fulton has such already. I'm open to extending that to others who
> have a good gra
As I'm digging into packaging issues here at PyCon, a couple of Python 3000
related matters occur to me. As I'm new to the Python 3000 development, if
these have already been addressed in prior discussions, I apologize for your
time.
1. What is the plan for PyPI when Python 3.0 comes out and
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> I'm actually happy to hear that there's this much energy available --
> hopefully some of it can be harnessed towards positive solutions.
>
> When I began developing setuptools, I often asked for the input of
> packagers, developers, etc., through the distutils-sig...
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:30PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
>>> People also want a greater variety of file_finders to be included with
>>> setuptools. Instead of just CVS and SVN,
I was in a Packaging BoF yesterday and, although not very relevant to the
packager bootstrap thread, Guido has asked me to post some of the concerns.
The BoF drew about 15 people, many of whom were packagers for Red Hat, Ubuntu
and such. Everyone had strong expressions of frustration with the s
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm +lots on someone giving a clear explanation of the meaning and
>> interrelationship of the various terms involved in this discussion
>> (setuptools, easy_install, pkg_resources, eggs, "pac
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I'd like to upgrade www.python.org this coming Thursday (June 21),
> between 6:00am and 12:00am UTC. During that time, neither www
> nor subversion access will be available (although I hope that
> I need much less than 6 hours).
>
> mail.python.org, and all other services
.
4) How many committers to the cPython core are there?
I don't have the necessary access to the pydotorg infrastructure
to answer this -- can someone who does help me out here?
Thanks for any one-line answers you can dash off to me today.
Jeff Ru
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I'd say that the parties interested in non-Unicode versions of
> Python should maintain these branches of Python. Dito for other
> stripped down versions.
I understand where you're coming from but the embedded market I encounter
tends to focus on the hardware side. If the
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 2/19/06, Jeff Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Quoting Neal Norwitz]
>
>>>I've heard of a bunch of people using --disable-unicode. I'm not sure
>>>if it's curiosity or if there are really production builds without
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 2/17/06, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Neal Norwitz wrote:
> >
>>Another candidate for removal is the --disable-unicode
>>switch.
>>
>>We should probably add a deprecation warning for that in
>>Py 2.5 and then remove the hundreds of
>>#idef Py_USING_UNICODE
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Rather than the back-n-forth about what the FSF might or might not do,
> can we just ask them for an official opinion and settle the matter?
>
> Who would we need to talk to for a definitive answer? I'm sure there's
> various FSF mailing lists where we could get 157 diffe
On Thursday 28 July 2005 07:21 pm, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Martin v. Löwis]
>
> > The conversion should be done using cvs2svn utility, available e.g.
> > in the cvs2svn Debian package. The command for converting the Python
> > repository is
> > Sample results of this conversion are available at
> >
On Friday 01 July 2005 10:45 am, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2005 11:44, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > Resource managers.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that, but was somewhat ambivalent. But I definately
> like it better than anything else proposed so far.
I like that as well. My hat i
>
> That I wonder myself, too.
One reason is correct documentation. If the code is rejected, there
should be a patch proposed to remove the erroneous documentation
references that indicates things are in __builtins_ when they are in
fact not.
If they are put into __builtins__, the document
18 matches
Mail list logo
