On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tarek Ziade wrote:
This new operator removes the ambiguity the original proposal had,
without making it more
complex for common use cases. So if you dislike it, you will need to
propose something
else that also fixes the ambiguity we had.
Ok.
David Lyon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tarek Ziade wrote:
This new operator removes the ambiguity the original proposal had,
without making it more
complex for common use cases. So if you dislike it, you will need to
propose something
else that also fixes the ambiguity we had.
Requires-Dist: pywin32 (1.0); sys.platform == 'win32'
Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+
That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to
parse for package managers.
Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this bike-shedding?
I can agree it's shorter. I can't agree that it's
On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Requires-Dist: pywin32 (1.0); sys.platform == 'win32'
Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+
That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to
parse for package managers.
Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this
Hi Martin, Happy New Year,
Requires-Dist: pywin32 (1.0); sys.platform == 'win32'
Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+
That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to
parse for package managers.
Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this bike-shedding?
Well, I'm just helping
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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:37, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu 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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
[..]
Tarek,
I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/27/2009 7:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Tarek Ziadéziade.tarekat gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:03 AM, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com 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.
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
That made much
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 depend on
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org 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
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com 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
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 uniformly use
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 Versions, and since comparisons of NormalizedVersions
are defined in PEP 386, and that's really all we're talking about
here,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au 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
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 meaning. The usual
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 counter
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
2009/12/28 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
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
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
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 translate
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com 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
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 specific
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. :)
This ==
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:27, david.l...@preisshare.net 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:
2009/12/28 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
[..]
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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de 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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:27, david.l...@preisshare.net 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.
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.
2.5.0 would be
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com 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.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
This == operator is fairly common in Debian. For example, the apache2
package installed on my system specifies
Oh, absolutely, but that's when
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:54, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de 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
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
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. Hasn't 2.6
2009/12/28 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
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
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0100, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
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
On 28/12/2009 22:57, David Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:42:20 +0100, Martin v. Löwismar...@v.loewis.de
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
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:07:32 +, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk 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
David Lyon david.lyon at 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
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
David Lyon david.lyon at 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
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:21:54 +, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
David Lyon david.lyon at 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
R. David Murray rdmurray at 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
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:21:54 + (UTC), Antoine Pitrou
solip...@pitrou.net 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
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:55:17 -0500, R. David Murray
rdmur...@bitdance.com 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
David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net 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
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com 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
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
David Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:07:32 +, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk 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
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
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
On Dec 28, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:17 AM, sstein...@gmail.com
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
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:00:50 +1100, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
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
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'll remove it and push it in Distutils documentation, then might just
provide a link in the PEP References.
That sounds fine to me.
That would address my questions as well - someone looking for a
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
FYI we have introduced a range operator, so one may define a range of
versions.
This is useful for instance to write:
Requires-Python: ~=2.5
Which means: requires any version of Python 2.5.x.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
FYI we have introduced a range operator, so one may define a range of
versions.
This is useful for instance to write:
On 12/27/2009 4:15 PM, david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
FYI we have introduced a range operator, so one may define a range of
versions.
This is useful for instance to write:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or 2.5.2.
How about having 2.5 match all 2.5.x versions, and 2.5.0 match only 2.5
itself? (ditto for 2.5.N matching only 2.5.N for N =
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
[..]
Tarek,
I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined with the newly
introduced range operator.
Would Requires-Python: =2.5 include 2.5.4 or not?
=2.5 means any version that is inferior or equal
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
That made much more sense. It was simple and
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or 2.5.2.
How about having 2.5 match all 2.5.x versions,
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
FYI we have introduced a range operator, so one may define a range of
versions. This is useful for instance to write:
Requires-Python: ~=2.5
Which means: requires any version of Python 2.5.x.
-1 on that syntax. It's an extra operator, with a
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or 2.5.2.
How about having 2.5 match all
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
Also, Requires-Python: 3 would include all 3.X versions, correct?
Correct, because, Requires-Python: 3 is equivalent to
Requires-Python: ~= 3 which is equivalent to
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
[..]
Tarek,
I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined with the newly
introduced range operator.
Would Requires-Python: =2.5 include 2.5.4 or not?
=2.5 means any version that is
2009-12-28 02:17:22 Ben Finney napisał(a):
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
Also, Requires-Python: 3 would include all 3.X versions, correct?
Correct, because, Requires-Python: 3 is
Ben Finney wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
Also, Requires-Python: 3 would include all 3.X versions, correct?
Correct, because, Requires-Python: 3 is equivalent to
Requires-Python: ~= 3 which
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
'Requires-Python: 3*' (or '3.*') would be better than 'Requires-Python: =3,
4'.
Maybe.
MRAB wrote:
Requires-Python: 3 ~ 4
Ugh. -1
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com
On Dec 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or
On 12/27/2009 5:21 PM, MRAB wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
[..]
Tarek,
I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined with the newly
introduced range operator.
Would Requires-Python: =2.5 include 2.5.4 or
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.
Before we had : Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6
That made much more sense. It was
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2009-12-28 02:17:22 Ben Finney napisał(a):
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
Also, Requires-Python: 3 would include all 3.X versions, correct?
Correct,
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 will expect
on seeing that syntax.
I really don't think your assessment
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
That made much more sense. It was simple and
Instead, the default should be â==â. That is, âRequires-Python: 3â
should be equivalent to âRequires-Python: ==3â; and only â3â or
â3.0â or
â3.0.0â etc. will match. I maintain that is what most people will
expect
on seeing that syntax.
If a less strict range is
On 12/27/2009 7:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Tarek Ziadéziade.tarekat gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or 2.5.2.
How about having 2.5 match all 2.5.x versions, and 2.5.0 match only 2.5
itself?
Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com writes:
An implicit range operator is simpler indeed, and achieves the same goal.
Meaning that =2.5 for example, will be translated to =2.5.x as well.
With respect, it's not a very common use case for a developer to
say that package needs a python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/27/2009 7:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Tarek Ziadéziade.tarekat gmail.com writes:
This was ambiguous because it was unclear, as MvL stated, if 2.5
was just 2.5.0 or included
versions like 2.5.1 or 2.5.2.
How about
david.l...@preisshare.net writes:
Before we had : Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6
That made much more sense. It was simple and unambiguous, and is
relevant to typical packaging scenarios.
Unfortunately, it is fairly ambiguous, and makes no sense. It means
requires Python 2.5 *AND*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar
sridh...@activestate.com wrote:
[..]
Tarek,
I am a bit confused at the current proposal combined with the newly
introduced range operator.
Would Requires-Python: =2.5
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 05:37, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu 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, nothing else does.
The first releases are called
david.l...@preisshare.net writes:
With respect, it's not a very common use case for a developer to
say that package needs a python interpretor 'older' than 2.5.
Of course it is. I don't claim it is the majority of cases out there,
but stable versions of many of the packages I use will
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 depend on a quirk
in behavior of an older
david.l...@preisshare.net writes:
With respect, it's not a very common use case for a developer to
say that package needs a python interpretor 'older' than 2.5.
Of course it is. I don't claim it is the majority of cases out there,
but stable versions of many of the packages I use will
As an application developer, I really stand with Tarek here.
Not sure what specific point of Tarek you are supporting, though.
I think we want something stronger than that since they were not really
used by
the community and removed and replaced by something better. Using them
should raise
David Lyon wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:31:09 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Martin's point is that the PEP process doesn't *have* reference
implementations. It has *sample* implementations. It may be useful
to refer to a sample implementation as an example..
2009/12/23 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
So that will happen in the code of course, but we need the PEP to state
clearly
wether metadata 1.0 and 1.1 should be dropped by implementations or not.
Ok. We should recommend that implementations support these versions
indefinitely. I see no
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
David Lyon wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:31:09 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Martin's point is that the PEP process doesn't *have* reference
implementations. It has *sample* implementations.
I'll remove it and push it in Distutils documentation, then might just
provide a link in the PEP References.
That sounds fine to me.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'll remove it and push it in Distutils documentation, then might just
provide a link in the PEP References.
That sounds fine to me.
That would address my questions as well - someone looking for a guide on
how they should deal with different versions of the metadata on
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
[..]
The deprecation of the existing Requires/Provides/Obsoletes fields
should be more prominent - tucked away below the examples, I missed
these notices on the first read through (I only noticed that they
actually had
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
if a 1.2 field is found and no 1.1 field is found:
metadata 1.2 is used
if a 1.1 field is found and no 1.2 field is found:
metadata 1.1 is used + a warning is displayed
if a 1.1 field is found and a 1.2
The deprecation of the existing Requires/Provides/Obsoletes fields
should be more prominent - tucked away below the examples, I missed
these notices on the first read through (I only noticed that they
actually had been formally deprecated when I got to the summary of
differences at the end).
2009/12/23 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
The deprecation of the existing Requires/Provides/Obsoletes fields
should be more prominent - tucked away below the examples, I missed
these notices on the first read through (I only noticed that they
actually had been formally deprecated when I
I think we want something stronger than that since they were not really used
by
the community and removed and replaced by something better. Using them
should raise a warning so developers abandon them, so it would be
don't use 1.1 anymore
I think you are mixing the distutils implementation
2009/12/23 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
I think we want something stronger than that since they were not really used
by
the community and removed and replaced by something better. Using them
should raise a warning so developers abandon them, so it would be
don't use 1.1 anymore
I
So that will happen in the code of course, but we need the PEP to state
clearly
wether metadata 1.0 and 1.1 should be dropped by implementations or not.
Ok. We should recommend that implementations support these versions
indefinitely. I see no point in dropping them.
But then, this is really
Martin,
As an application developer, I really stand with Tarek here.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:07:30 +0100, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/23 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
I think we want something stronger than that since they were not really
used by
the community and
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
