On 27 Sep 2014 14:19, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
All this is also making me think that virtualenv and friends is the real
solution to user installed packages anyway.
The main use case that doesn't cover is system scripting on Linux, where
you may want access to all the platform
On 27 September 2014 06:08, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Pip on Windows should act like a normal Windows program. If I install
Python for all users, I expect pipped packages to be installed for all users
too, unless I specify otherwise. If installation (for all users) requires
admin
On 26 September 2014 01:38, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Either way I'm fairly commited to making --user the default, the only
question
on my mind is what exactly does that look like (e.g. does root get --user by
default?) and how we get from where we are now to that point. I think
On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 01:38, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Either way I'm fairly commited to making --user the default, the only
question
on my mind is what exactly does that look like (e.g. does root get --user by
On 26 September 2014 14:31, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Yea, I think we throw an error when you use —user inside a virtual
environment.
So if --user became the default, what would happen? I'd like pip
inside a virtualenv to install into the environment without needing a
--system
On Sep 26, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 September 2014 14:31, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Yea, I think we throw an error when you use —user inside a virtual
environment.
So if --user became the default, what would happen? I'd like pip
inside
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
2) Switch to —user based on if the user has permission to write to the
site-packages or not.
ouch -- no. Why not a clear error message if pip can't write to
site-packages -- something like:
I fairly strongly
On 9/26/2014 1:03 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io
mailto:don...@stufft.io wrote:
2) Switch to —user based on if the user has permission to
write to the
site-packages or not.
ouch -- no. Why not a clear
On 25 September 2014 02:08, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Indeed. Moving towards having --user as the norm is definitely
something we want to look at for pip. One of the biggest concerns is
how well-exercised the whole user site directory area is in practice.
What do you mean by
FYI, homebrew's Python uses prefix option, so I can't use `--user`.
Is it a bug?
$ /usr/local/bin/pip -V
pip 1.5.6 from
/usr/local/Cellar/python/2.7.8_1/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip-1.5.6-py2.7.egg
(python 2.7)
$ /usr/local/bin/pip install --user
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:34:31 +0100
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 September 2014 02:08, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Indeed. Moving towards having --user as the norm is definitely
something we want to look at for pip. One of the biggest concerns is
how
Le 25/09/2014 09:22, INADA Naoki a écrit :
FYI, homebrew's Python uses prefix option, so I can't use `--user`.
Is it a bug?
$ /usr/local/bin/pip -V
pip 1.5.6 from
/usr/local/Cellar/python/2.7.8_1/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip-1.5.6-py2.7.egg
On 24 September 2014 23:16, Mike Miller python-...@mgmiller.net wrote:
Hi all,
ProgramFiles was the default in Python 1.X.
It has been a supported option for just shy of 15 years on 2.X... most if
not all the bugs (setuptools) were fixed a decade ago, and right now
thousands, if not
On Sep 25, 2014, at 4:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 07:34:31 +0100
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 September 2014 02:08, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Indeed. Moving towards having --user as the norm is definitely
something we
On 25 September 2014 16:43, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Basically people have Python in a ton of different configurations and it’s
hard to figure out if —user will work out of the box in all of them or not.
I guess that Using the python.org Python installer on Windows is a
limited
On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 September 2014 16:43, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Basically people have Python in a ton of different configurations and it’s
hard to figure out if —user will work out of the box in all of them or not.
I
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Donald Stufft wrote:
One thing about *nix is even though you can’t write to your normal
Python install location without root, invoking pip with permissions
(assuming you have
them) is as
On 25 September 2014 17:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
So yes, pip can certainly do this, and if it's already running elevated then
it shouldn't reprompt, but it's not entirely trivial to get this right (are
you denied write access to that directory because you're not admin
Paul Moore wrote:
On 25 September 2014 17:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
So yes, pip can certainly do this, and if it's already running
elevated then it shouldn't reprompt, but it's not entirely trivial to
get this right (are you denied write access to that directory because
On 25 September 2014 18:13, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Again, this isn't trivial to get right. The design for the elevation model
seems to have focused mainly on GUI rather than console, probably assuming
that people who need to elevate from the console will elevate the
Am 24.09.14 14:34, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:12:35 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2014 15:15, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:05, Steve Dower wrote:
I'm also considering/experimenting with installing into Program
Files by
On 09/24/2014 09:11 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Therefore: if VC14 doesn't ship by 3.5 RC1, currently set at August 5, 2015, I
decree we have to ship 3.5 with the
previous version.
Reasonable?
Seems reasonable to me.
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev
On 26 Sep 2014 01:56, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, I'd like to hold off moving to Program Files as a default
until *after* we have enough confidence in user installs that we are
willing to switch pip to --user as the default behaviour everywhere.
And yes, I'm aware that
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
1) Just always default to —user and add a —system or similar flag, this
is super easy to change but is a backwards incompatible change and
would need to go through a deprecation window.
Maybe would have been the
On Sep 25, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io
mailto:don...@stufft.io wrote:
1) Just always default to —user and add a —system or similar flag, this
is super easy to change but is a backwards
On 24 Sep 2014 15:15, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:05, Steve Dower wrote:
I'm also considering/experimenting with installing into Program
Files by default, but I suspect that isn't going to work out yet.
I'd like to see that go forward: I think it's increasingly
On 24 September 2014 06:13, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
My only real misgiving here is that, for a few years, we'll need *three*
versions installed to build the active branches: 2008 for 2.7; 2010 for 3.4;
and 2014 for 3.5. Am I wrong?
Also, will 2014 express edition be able to
On 24.09.2014 03:48, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 September 2014 03:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Larry Hastings wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:12:35 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2014 15:15, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:05, Steve Dower wrote:
I'm also considering/experimenting with installing into Program
Files by default, but I suspect that isn't going
2014-09-23 2:22 GMT+02:00 Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
Comments?
It says 3.4.0 all through it.
It was too distrubing
On 09/24/2014 10:00 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 3.5 release schedule PEP
On 24 Sep 2014 15:15, Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:05, Steve Dower wrote:
I'm also considering/experimenting with installing into Program
Files
On 24 September 2014 14:16, Mike Miller python-...@mgmiller.net wrote:
It has been a supported option for just shy of 15 years on 2.X... most if
not all the bugs (setuptools) were fixed a decade ago, and right now
thousands, if not millions of people are running it under Program Files
right
Most Windows setup are desktop configured with a single user. I would not
be shocked if pip installs modules only for the current user by default.
Maybe it could be an option in Python installer (pip system wide or user).
Victor
Le mercredi 24 septembre 2014, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com a
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:32:52 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Most Windows setup are desktop configured with a single user. I would not
be shocked if pip installs modules only for the current user by default.
Maybe it could be an option in Python installer (pip system wide
Paul Moore wrote:
On 24 September 2014 14:16, Mike Miller python-...@mgmiller.net wrote:
It has been a supported option for just shy of 15 years on 2.X...
most if not all the bugs (setuptools) were fixed a decade ago, and
right now thousands, if not millions of people are running it under
On Sep 24, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
On 24 September 2014 14:16, Mike Miller python-...@mgmiller.net wrote:
It has been a supported option for just shy of 15 years on 2.X...
most if not all the bugs (setuptools) were fixed a decade
Donald Stufft wrote:
One thing about *nix is even though you can’t write to your normal Python
install location without root, invoking pip with permissions (assuming you
have
them) is as easy as prefacing it with ``sudo`` in most cases. Does Windows
have
an equivalent or do you need to
Thanks for the insights, Steve.
More below...
On 24.09.2014 18:52, Steve Dower wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I'd rather be conservative here and wait for another Python release before
switching VC versions. There are a few important questions that need answers
before we can consider a new VC
Mike Miller wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
One thing that I presume would be an issue. Isn't Program Files
protected in newer versions of Windows?
Yes, that's the feature that protects from malicious users/code editing
import
os to run format c:\, spam your address book, or look for credit
On 09/25/2014 08:50 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
Unfortunately not. The easy way is for the executable to declare that it
needs administrative privileges, and then the OS will take over and let you
approve/reject/sign-in/etc. according to your settings.
There is the runas command, though it could
Paul Moore wrote:
One thing that I presume would be an issue. Isn't Program Files protected in
newer versions of Windows?
Yes, that's the feature that protects from malicious users/code editing import
os to run format c:\, spam your address book, or look for credit card
numbers, etc.
It
On 09/25/2014 08:43 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
One thing about *nix is even though you can’t write to your normal Python
install location without root, invoking pip with permissions (assuming you have
them) is as easy as prefacing it with ``sudo`` in most cases. Does Windows have
an equivalent
On 24 September 2014 22:29, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
In my experience pip --user works just fine also. We use it on our unmanned
media players successfully.
This is good to know. Maybe we aren't as far away as we think.
Indeed. Moving towards having --user as the norm is
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:56:20 +0100
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 September 2014 22:29, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
In my experience pip --user works just fine also. We use it on our unmanned
media players successfully.
This is good to know. Maybe we aren't
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I'd rather be conservative here and wait for another Python release before
switching VC versions. There are a few important questions that need answers
before we can consider a new VC version:
* Will there be free versions available ?
* Will those free editions
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Donald Stufft wrote:
One thing about *nix is even though you can’t write to your normal Python
install location without root, invoking pip with permissions (assuming you
have
them) is as easy as prefacing it with
Yes, we enable the compile script.
As we require admin rights to install Python and system (not user) modules with
pip, the stdlib .pycs do get created under ProgramFiles at install time.
There might well be a situation where a system pipped module doesn't get
compiled, but to be honest the
On 9/24/2014 6:59 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
That is, could pip
defer the declaration until it's parsed its command line args and
decided that it'll be installing into the system directory, but NOT
make that declaration if it's given --user, or if it's running inside
a venv, or anything else that
On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 September 2014 03:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
I'd like to move the Windows versions onto the next release of VC (currently VC 14 until the branding
team figures out what to call it). There isn't a promised RTM date for VC
On 09/24/2014 08:04 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
It was too distrubing to read 3.4 in the 3.5 schedule. I modified
the PEP directly, sorry Larry.
No sweat. I would have fixed it myself, but yesterday was a big travel day.
Thanks for fixing it!
//arry/
On 23 September 2014 10:20, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
Thanks.
On 23 September 2014 19:46, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Under consideration (in addition to the items already listed in the PEP):
PEP 432 (simplifying the startup sequence)
PEP 475 (retry system calls failing with EINTR)
Improved Windows console Unicode support (see
Larry Hastings wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
Key facts:
. Beta 1 is May 24th 2015, about a month
On 24 September 2014 03:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Larry Hastings wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
On Sep 23, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 September 2014 03:05, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com
mailto:steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
Larry Hastings wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule
On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
This new compiler has the incredibly awesome feature of being forwards
compatible
right? Like in 10 years stuff compiled with a newer compiler will still work?
That's the promise at least :)
All the macros
Stufftmailto:don...@stufft.io
Sent: 9/23/2014 18:50
To: Nick Coghlanmailto:ncogh...@gmail.com
Cc: Steve Dowermailto:steve.do...@microsoft.com;
python-dev@python.orgmailto:python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] 3.5 release schedule PEP
On Sep 23, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Nick Coghlan
ncogh
On 23/09/2014 18:05, Steve Dower wrote:
I'm also considering/experimenting with installing into Program
Files by default, but I suspect that isn't going to work out yet.
I'd like to see that go forward: I think it's increasingly difficult to
justify Python's position at c:\pythonxx. But it
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
Key facts:
* Beta 1 is May 24th 2015, about a month after the end of the
On Sep 22, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Just checked it in as PEP 478. It should show up here in a few minutes:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
Hi Larry,
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Yep. I plan to write it on Monday, at the PyCon UK sprints, right after
3.4.2rc1 goes out. FWIW it'll be 3.4 + 18 months.
//arry/
On 09/19/2014 03:31 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Hi Larry,
I think we need a Python 3.5 Release Schedule PEP.
Cheers,
-Barry
62 matches
Mail list logo
