"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Terry Reedy
| > The standard (and to me, preferable) way of dealing
| > with such things is to have an 'installation manager'
| > that can reinstall as well as delete and that has a
| > check box for various things to d
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:14 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are still only seeing this as a case of libraries with a small
> > number of people developing them and making regular well defined
> > releases. That is not how the world I am talking about looks.
>
> Can you
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also curious about why Lennart thinks that this would only be relevant
> for large projects with lots of developers making regular releases.
No, you misunderstood, or I miswrote.
I think 2to3 is a procedure th
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:14:13 +0100, "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You are still only seeing this as a case of libraries with a small
> >> number of people developing them and making regular
> Nuxeo CPS worked like this, but we can ignore them as that project is
> all but dead will never move to Python 3 in any case. Zope/CMF/Plone
> works like this.
I don't understand. AFAICT, Zope *is* a library, i.e. you have to run
setup.py for lots of packages. Do you not have to run setup.py, fo
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nuxeo CPS worked like this, but we can ignore them as that project is
> > all but dead will never move to Python 3 in any case. Zope/CMF/Plone
> > works like this.
>
> I don't understand. AFAICT, Zope *is* a libra
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> safe assumption to make. A simple preprocessor step involving 2to3 requires
> no such knowledge.
As I understood it nobody has claimed 2to3 to be perfect either, but
that using 2to3 will also require you to test the code
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Eric Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been double checking the PEP 3127 implementation in py3k and the
>> backport I did to 2.6. The PEP says this about the % operator:
>>
>> "The string (and unicode in 2.6) % operator will hav
>> I don't understand. AFAICT, Zope *is* a library, i.e. you have to run
>> setup.py for lots of packages. Do you not have to run setup.py, for,
>> say, zope.interface, or zope.psycopgda?
>
> No, Zope is not a library, it's an application. No, you typically do
> not setup packages, although mos
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://svn.zope.org/zope.psycopgda/trunk/
>
> Is that not the right source?
No, and yes. Many of the zope3 modules are installable as separate
modules. Zope 3 in general has been "eggified". This is not however
how
Hi Python devs,
I have been contributing to since December. (See me first issue on the
tracker, #1828; it was a major learning experience.) :P In that time, I have
contributed many patches and actively participated on this list.
This will enable me to help triage bugs on the tracker, something I've
On 24/03/2008, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If I install python and then separately install Zope, it may or may
> | not make sense for Zope to be listed separately as a "program" to Add
> | or Remove.
>
> Neither Paul nor I defined 'add-on', but I would be willing to call
> Zope/P
On 24/03/2008, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > safe assumption to make. A simple preprocessor step involving 2to3 requires
> > no such knowledge.
>
> As I understood it nobody has claimed 2to3 to be perfe
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/03/2008, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > safe assumption to make. A simple preprocessor step involving 2to3
> requires
On 24/03/2008, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 24/03/2008, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As I understood it nobody has claimed 2to3 to be perfect either, but
> > > that using 2to3 wi
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your statement "using 2to3 will also require you to test the code in
> both environments" seemed to me to say that *not* having to use 2to3
> would save you from doing this (as if this were either desirable, or
> your curr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've missed most of this thread, but let me just put my two cents in.
I'd still like a future import to turn on unicode string literals (or
more accurately, treat unadorned string literals as unicodes). As
someone who is striving mightily to ge
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess I could better understand with a very specific example.
>> You gave Django as a very specific example, and I looked at Django,
>> and it works just fine with 2to3. "The Plone collec
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it isn't. A specific example would be "I have environment X setup on
> a machine. I go to website/SVN repository Y and retrieve source code Z
> and start using it".
"I have environment Plone setup on a machine. I also
> For example, if I'm using the (real source) py2.6 code, and I create a
> patch that works for me, it is ready for testing and submission. If
> I'm using the (generated) py3 code, then I first have to get a copy of
> the (source) 2.6, figure out how I *would* have written it there, then
> keep tw
> Maybe it's not apparent to people that hasn't
> developed in that kind of environment, and
> I'm sorry I'm not able to make this clearer.
I think I understand the issue.
Some contributors will be running under 2.6, others will be running under 3.0.
Either the code forks, or one of them is work
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
> I've missed most of this thread, but let me just put my two cents in.
> I'd still like a future import to turn on unicode string literals (or
> more accurately, treat unadorned string literals as unicodes). As
> someone who is striving mightily to get various libraries and
> "I have environment Plone setup on a machine. I also have several
> products from the Plone collective which I use from the custom product
> that contains the custom site code".
>
> Thats it. It is a specific example. I can't get more specific than
> that without you learning Plone.
Ok, let me
I'm going to refresh this discussion since it seems no decisions are
still taken.
Any chance to see a commit finally done?
--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:30 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Ah, I see. Your point was that with enough magic there is some way to
run 2to3 automatically. Sure, I never doubted that.
I don't see how that changes anything I said really. I still think the
forwards compatibil
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> For example, if I'm using the (real source) py2.6 code, and I create a
>> patch that works for me, it is ready for testing and submission. If
>> I'm using the (generated) py3 code, then I first have to get a copy of
>> the (source) 2.6, figure out how I *would* have writt
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the consensus was that
> it wasn't desirable, generally.
>
I remember only a couple of dissenting voices, and only a small number of
participants. Of the dissenting voices, I
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the consensus was that
> > it wasn't desirable, generally.
> >
>
> I remember only a couple o
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Josiah Carlson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Twisted core has been proposed, but I believe the con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> Sure, but what is precisely the semantics of uninstallation, in
>>> terms of changes to the system state?
>>>
>>> I think any model where uninstallation is merely the removal
>>> of files is too limited to be practical.
>> Th
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:20PM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> I remember only a couple of dissenting voices, and only a small number of
> participants. Of the dissenting voices, I do not recall any actual arguments
Weren't some of those dissenting voices the Twisted developers, though?
--amk
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Twisted may be one of the best (if not *the* best) ways of writing
> > concurrent programs today, but it doesn't need to be in the stdlib fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Oh, and application installation is (should be) completely different.
>> On Windows, applications should probably be bundled with their own
>> Python interpreter, a la py2exe. On Unix/Linux, I don't know what the
>> standard
Let us not get side-tracked in this discussion. Whether or not to
include any portion of Twisted into Python 2.6 is well past being a
reasonable question; 2.6 alpha 1 has been released. It's a question
as to whether someone with commit access can or will commit the patch
as posted, run the tests
""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think we all can agree that we would like Plone to migrate to 3.x without
too much pain and that their collective situation may be more difficult for
migration than some others.
| http://wiki.python.org/moin/Por
I've attached my SSH keys.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Benjamin Peterson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Python devs,
> I have been contributing to since December. (See me first issue on the
> tracker, #1828; it was a major learning experience.) :P In that time, I have
> contributed many pa
> | Just to repeat myself: With that patch to Django, you can
> | a) support all versions of Python simultaneously, from 2.x to 3.0
>
> I find this surprising for two reasons.
>
> 1. I had the impression from discussions over the past year that fully
> automatic use of 2to3 would presume use of
Jim Jewett wrote:
> In 2.5, the print statement ignores any overrides of the str builtin,
> but I'm not sure whether a _function_ should -- and I do think it
> should be specified.
I expect there are plenty of other things that use
str()-like behaviour without going through str(), so
making print
Barry> All the gory details are documented here:
Barry> http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar
Thanks. I checked out, made a branch named test3, changed Makefile.pre.in
to have a test3 target, checked it in, then tried to push it:
% pwd
/Users/skip/src/python-bzr/test3
% bzr
On Mar 22, 5:13 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you give me a
> > pointer to Aza Raskin's keynote? Is it online anywhere? I'd be
> > interested in his point of view.
>
> Unfortunately no. I was looking for it, but couldn't find it. He
> mentioned a website with a "call for
Under the instruction of Martin, I've made some small changes to 2to3
so keeps track of which fixers act on which level of node. The
speedup isn't too shabby: running on the example file, processing
time went from 9 to 7 seconds, and the test suite dropped from 400 to
350.
I have attached
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:04:45PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:31 AM 3/22/2008 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> >However, I'm extremely skeptical that this can ever succeed
> >to the degree that whoever provides RPMs, .debs, or MSI
> >files will actually use such data, as they will find tha
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:33:49PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > The data isn't for them to use to meet their use cases, it's for them to
> > *provide* so that Python tools don't stomp on, uninstall, or otherwise
> > interfere with files installed by the system. In other words, for
> > sy
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:14:05PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Essentially, one would have to contribute patches to all the
>>> distributions (we care about, at least), and then nag the respective
>>> maintainers to include these patches.
>>
>> Not true. You just need to make sure that "
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:42:36PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I speak for Debian, so for Debian: yes. The setup.py would have to be
>> pretty bad for a packager to not use it. There is no reason to
>> re-write upstream's installation procedure as you would have to figure
>> out which file
On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I'll note that I use easy_install *only* to work in *non-system*
>> locations: if I want to install Python packages to /usr/lib/
>> python2.x/,
>> I use the standard system installer, e.g. 'apt-get install
>> python-frobnatz'.
>
> This is p
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The objections to the PEP remain the same as they were then,
> though: In the requirements, it says "we need", without saying
> why we need. It then goes on saying "we want" (rephrased)
> "to duplicate APT and RPM",
On Saturday 22 March 2008, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > In the case of Fedora rpms, the usual install uses setup.py.
>
> Ok. Does it then also package all files that get installed into
> the RPM file? If it produces multiple RPMs from a single source
> package, how does it know which files go into wh
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems to me that this discussion is being undermined by not
> > acknowledging the many use cases up front. There is no rationale
> > because there are too many tacit rationales.
>
> I honestly, really, cannot i
> (Note: I'm aware that people believe it to be necessary to munge the
> Windows registry when installing Python packages; I just don't agree
> with the practice, and don't think we should distort Python's process
> to coddle it).
Whoever thinks it necessary is misguided. Installing a package d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Barry> All the gory details are documented here:
>
> Barry> http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar
>
> Thanks. I checked out, made a branch named test3, changed Makefile.pre.in
> to have a test3 target, checked it in, then tried to push it:
>
> % pwd
>
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ajaksu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] While Linux and OS X both view Python as essentially a first-class
> development platform-i.e., as something that shrink-wrap applications
> can be built on-Windows does not. Instead, it's generally expected
> that a Python
52 matches
Mail list logo
