Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> How well does the regression test suite cope when run inside such a
> virtualised environment?
I followed this up, and three tests fail: test_lib2to3, test_packaging and
test_sysconfig. These are errors which show up on the default branch too [1][2];
full result
On 14 Jun, 2011, at 11:15, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
> On 14.06.2011, at 01:46, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>> In fact, the only new-OS-version adjustment I can recall virtualenv
>> needing to make is when Debian introduced dist-packages -- but even that
>> doesn't really apply, as that was distro-pac
On 14.06.2011, at 01:46, Carl Meyer wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 08:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Vinay Sajip
>> wrote:
>>> You're right in terms of the current Python ecosystem and 3.x adoption,
>>> because
>>> of course this approach requires support from Python i
On Jun 14, 2011, at 01:00 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>On 14/06/2011 00:46, Carl Meyer wrote:
>> [snip...]
>> So I don't think a virtualenv stdlib module would be at all likely to
>> break on a new OS release, if Python itself is not broken by that OS
>> release. (It certainly wouldn't be the stdlib
On 13Jun2011 17:31, Vinay Sajip wrote:
| Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
| > Ah, no I don't think that'll be helpful. I can probably reuse the python3.3
| > packaging stuff to do a PPA.
|
| Okay, go for it! Is there a specific tutorial somewhere about making a PPA for
| Python? (As opposed to
On 13Jun2011 13:47, Vinay Sajip wrote:
| Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
|
| > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net>
| > wrote:
| > > As a side-note, I think calling it "virtualization" is a recipe for
| > > confusion.
| >
| > Indeed, OS level virtualisation pretty much
On 14/06/2011 00:46, Carl Meyer wrote:
[snip...]
So I don't think a virtualenv stdlib module would be at all likely to
break on a new OS release, if Python itself is not broken by that OS
release. (It certainly wouldn't be the stdlib module most likely to be
broken by OS changes, in comparison to
On 06/13/2011 06:46 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> FWIW, historically pretty much every new Python version has broken
> virtualenv
I should clarify that this is because of the delicate stdlib
bootstrapping virtualenv currently has to do; the built-in virtualenv
eliminates this entirely and will require m
On 06/13/2011 08:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> You're right in terms of the current Python ecosystem and 3.x adoption,
>> because
>> of course this approach requires support from Python itself in terms of its
>> site.py code. However, virtual
On 06/13/2011 06:55 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> There are two options:
>
> Bring the full functionality into the standard library so that Python
> supports virtual environments out of the box. As is the case with adding
> anything to the standard library it will then be impossible to add
> feature
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
> Ah, no I don't think that'll be helpful. I can probably reuse the python3.3
> packaging stuff to do a PPA.
Okay, go for it! Is there a specific tutorial somewhere about making a PPA for
Python? (As opposed to more generalised tutorials - or would they be
suff
On Jun 13, 2011, at 04:00 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>My Debian-packaging-fu is not that good, I'm afraid, so there's no branch for
>the .deb, as such. I made the package by running make and then
>
>sudo checkinstall -D --fstrans=no
>
>which takes forever (God knows why - it's many many minutes at 100
Barry Warsaw python.org> writes:
> Question: how hard would it be to backport the work you've done to Python 3.2?
> Obviously I'm not saying it should be ported to the official 3.2 branch, but
> if *someone* were interested in doing so, would it be possible? Sounds like
> you can almost get ther
On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>Do people agree that it may be fitting, proper and timely to bring
>virtualisation into Python, and are there any fundamental flaws anyone can see
>with the approach used?
Yes, absolutely. We'll hash out the details when the PEP is published, and
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net>
> wrote:
> > As a side-note, I think calling it "virtualization" is a recipe for
> > confusion.
>
> Indeed, OS level virtualisation pretty much has a lock on that term.
> "virtual environments" skates
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:42, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You should be able to use symlinks even on Windows these days
> > (although granted they won't on portable media that uses a non-symlink
> > friendly filesystem, regardless of OS).
>
> Plus I'm not sure Win
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> You should be able to use symlinks even on Windows these days
> (although granted they won't on portable media that uses a non-symlink
> friendly filesystem, regardless of OS).
Plus I'm not sure Windows XP supports true symlinks - I think you have to make
do wit
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Michael Foord voidspace.org.uk> writes:
>> Don't forget windows support!
>
> I haven't. Though I haven't tested the most recent changes on Windows yet, I
> have tested the basic approach under Windows (the code doesn't rely on
> symlinks, but
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> You're right in terms of the current Python ecosystem and 3.x adoption,
> because
> of course this approach requires support from Python itself in terms of its
> site.py code. However, virtual environments have a utility beyond supporting
> o
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> As a side-note, I think calling it "virtualization" is a recipe for
> confusion.
Indeed, OS level virtualisation pretty much has a lock on that term.
"virtual environments" skates close to it but manages to avoid it well
enough to avoid co
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:47:33 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> $ python3.3 -m virtualize /tmp/venv
> $ source /tmp/venv/bin/activate.sh
> $ pysetup3 install Mako
>
> and so on. A log of early experiments, which seems reasonably promising, is at
> [4].
>
> Do people agree that it may be fitting
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> Given that it is desirable for tools like virtualenv to support *old*
> versions of Python on *new* versions of operating systems, it seems to
> me that there is an inherent element of their feature set that makes
> including the whole tool questionable.
You're
Michael Foord voidspace.org.uk> writes:
> It would certainly need a PEP.
Of course.
> There are two options:
>
> Bring the full functionality into the standard library so that Python
> supports virtual environments out of the box. As is the case with adding
> anything to the standard library
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
> Virtual environments are phenomenally useful, so I would support having the
> full tool in the standard library, but it does raise maintenance and
> development issues.
>
> Don't forget windows support! ;-)
Given that it is desirable for too
On 13/06/2011 12:47, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Back in March this year, Carl Meyer did some work to see if it was feasible
to bring virtualenv functionality into Python [1] (code at [2]).
Carl's changes were to Python code only, which was almost but not quite enough.
I built on his changes with updates
Back in March this year, Carl Meyer did some work to see if it was feasible
to bring virtualenv functionality into Python [1] (code at [2]).
Carl's changes were to Python code only, which was almost but not quite enough.
I built on his changes with updates to C code in getpath.c/getpathp.c, and my
26 matches
Mail list logo
