On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
...but let's make sure we keep caring about the tools that people really
use, which includes both setuptools and distribute.
The lack of a meaningful transition plan is where I think we fell down
with PEP 345 386, and
On 03/02/2013 13:27, Tres Seaver wrote:
As for setuptools (as opposed to distribute), I don't think we should
care anymore.
Yes, you need to care. It is *still* true today that distribute and
setuptools remain largely interchangeable, which is the only thing that
makes distribute viable, in
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the
language or
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Éric Araujo merwok at netwok.org writes:
Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
story is needed :)
Agreed. Just because distutils can't easily/reliably build things that are
better
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Erik Bray erik.m.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Éric Araujo merwok at netwok.org writes:
Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
story is needed :)
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Erik Bray erik.m.b...@gmail.com wrote:
TL;DR, strong -1 on the stdlib getting out of the build business.
Also as I think Nick already mentioned one of the wins of
Setup-Requires-Dist is to have a standard way to bring in extra build
requirements (such as bento)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com writes:
You are putting the words out of the context in which those were
written: it is stated that the focus is on the general architecture
OK, no offence was meant. Thanks for
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:44:33 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
another
On 3 February 2013 11:27, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't expect anything I want to do to be particularly controversial,
but I think it's worth trying to get it right (even if it delays wheel
support in pip for a few more weeks).
Will wheel be implemented in distutils?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
accepted
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
accepted format
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
format
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:08:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
MvL raised this concern last time the wheel format was discussed, and, to
date,
nothing has happened to address it.
My apologies to Daniel, it appears I misremembered this part of the
previous discussion. Daniel assures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2013 08:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I'm sure it is perfectly possible to evolve and bugfix distutils
without breaking distribute. What's more, distribute is actually
maintained and can evolve to accomodate the fixes.
I wouldn't be on
The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
would be able to install pip etc with that tool. There is no need to put
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:41:29 -0500
Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
On 3 February 2013 14:41, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
would be
On 4 Feb 2013 00:54, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 February 2013 14:41, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having
the
software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple
wheel
installer script
On Feb 03, 2013, at 04:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- someone else volunteers to be BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426 (MvL, perhaps?)
On principle, I think it's a good idea to try to recruit another PEP czar.
I'm not volunteering though, due to lack of time.
Cheers,
-Barry
My position is that these days distutils doesn't belong in the standard
library any more than Django does. So I am mildly opposed to supporting it
when you should be using better designed third party tools like Bento or
setuptools. Wheel makes it possible for Python to get out of the build tool
Hi,
Le 03/02/2013 13:57, Daniel Holth a écrit :
My position is that these days distutils doesn't belong in the standard
library any more than Django does.
You can install anything you want, but first you need an installer. I
think that a language needs packaging formats and basic build and
Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com writes:
Wheel makes it possible for Python to get out of the build tool
business. Just install your preferred tools with a concise bootstrap
installer.
If this is true, it would also have been possible with eggs, yet it
didn't happen. Why do you think it will
Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
impressive. I am reacting to all the hate heaped on setup tools when I
think the underlying DistUtils design is a big part of the problem. My
feeling is that stdlib packaging tools should be for bootstrapping and
reference,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
impressive.
If Bento is cool, is there some way we can help it gain more traction
in the Python ecosystem? Not necessarily by incorporating it into
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Simon Cross
hodgestar+python...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
impressive.
If Bento is cool, is there some way we can help it gain
The pip integration is basically to allow pip to find wheels on PyPI
or any local indexes you have, and to install them via the pip
install command.
it also offers pip wheel for building wheels (using bdist_wheel) locally
for your requirements, since wheels wouldn't be pervasive on PyPI for a
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The rationale for the distutils freeze is don't break setuptools.
That rationale still holds.
IIRC, the historical issue that triggered the freeze was not that the
distutils refactoring broke setuptools, but that it did so
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
accepted format supported by PEPs, hence the
They can be signed with pypi detached signatures already. It works now
exactly as for sdist.
The innovation was supposed to be in convenience for the signer, in
allowing keys to be trusted per package and for a list of dependencies and
the expected signing keys to be shared easily. Does anyone
Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com writes:
Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
impressive. I am reacting to all the hate heaped on setup tools when I think
the underlying DistUtils design is a big part of the problem. My feeling is
that stdlib packaging
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Bento is interesting, but I wouldn't jump to heap praise onto it. Apart from
the
somewhat idiosyncratic source style, David Cournapeau himself points to what
he
regards as weaknesses in it[1].
For the record, all
Éric Araujo merwok at netwok.org writes:
Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
story is needed :)
Agreed. Just because distutils can't easily/reliably build things that are
better built with SCons/WAF/tup/whatever, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have
the ability
Simon Cross hodgestar+pythondev at gmail.com writes:
For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
In Bento's author's own words - Weak documentation, Mediocre code quality,
at a lower level, a lot of code leaves to be desired may be trivial if David
is just being
He is being self deprecating. Its also true that python dev can't recommend
bento wholesale. That is fine with me.
On Feb 3, 2013 5:36 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Simon Cross hodgestar+pythondev at gmail.com writes:
For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Simon Cross hodgestar+pythondev at gmail.com writes:
For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
In Bento's author's own words - Weak documentation, Mediocre code quality,
at a lower level, a lot of
On 4 Feb 2013 09:22, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Simon Cross hodgestar+pythondev at gmail.com writes:
For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
In Bento's author's own words -
David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com writes:
You are putting the words out of the context in which those were
written: it is stated that the focus is on the general architecture
OK, no offence was meant. Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
In doing the detailed review of PEP 426 as BDFL-Delegate, I keep
noticing confusing problems with the current spec that mean I want to
become a *co-author* on the spec, rather than explaining to the
current authors the
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the
language or
40 matches
Mail list logo
