On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have set up a BitBucket repo called distlib, at
https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/distlib/
...
The code was taken at around the time packaging was removed, and may not have
more recent changes.
Would it be
On Sep 16, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Chris Jerdonek chris.jerdo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have set up a BitBucket repo called distlib, at
https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/distlib/
...
The code was taken at around the time
On 14 September 2012 16:12, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I have set up a BitBucket repo called distlib, at
https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/distlib/
This has the following bits of distutils2 / packaging, updated to run on 2.x
and
3.x with a single codebase, and including
I agree with Lennart's and Antoine's advice of just move forward with what
we have. If some PEPs need fixing then let's fix them, but we don't need to
rock the horse even more by going overboard. Getting the sane, core bits
into the stdlib as packaging is meant to is plenty to take on. If
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Lennart's and Antoine's advice of just move forward with what
we have. If some PEPs need fixing then let's fix them, but we don't need to
rock the horse even more by going overboard. Getting the sane, core bits
Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com writes:
A nice addition would be an API for managing the RECORD file. I would
imagine functions to read/write the file (hiding the details of how to
open the CSV file correctly in a cross-platform manner), functions to
produce a list of the files installed
On 16 September 2012 23:26, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think all that's needed (at the same level of abstraction) is a method
write_installed_files(iterable_of_absolute_file_paths) which writes the file.
This code is already in the
On 9/14/12 5:12 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
I like distcore or distlib, though.
I have set up a BitBucket repo called distlib, at
https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/distlib/
This has the following bits of distutils2 / packaging, updated to run on 2.x
Tarek Ziadé tarek at ziade.org writes:
Regards,
oh, cool !
maybe we could copy it at hg.python.org ?
Sure, but I don't know if I can do it. IIUC it needs someone with an account on
the server to create new repositories.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Sure, but I don't know if I can do it. IIUC it needs someone with an account
on
the server to create new repositories.
Depends how much you care about a pristine history - you can do a
server side clone of an
Depends how much you care about a pristine history - you can do a
server side clone of an existing repo and then empty it out. And if
you use http://hg.python.org/buildbot/empty/ as the starting point,
there isn't even anything to empty out.
Actually there are some files in there - a
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:27:28 +0100 (BST)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Depends how much you care about a pristine history - you can do a
server side clone of an existing repo and then empty it out. And if
you use http://hg.python.org/buildbot/empty/ as the starting point,
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
On the other hand, if you are not using hg.python.org features such as
commits e-mails or buildbots, it's also fine living on bitbucket until
the project matures a bit.
I'm fine with that.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:14:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping certain
bits that were more ready than others was discussed. Perhaps the
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Most people use distutils / packaging as
an application, not a library. If you provide only a subset of
the necessary features, people won't use packaging.
Not that I think current usage patterns matter since moving from
On 9/13/12 11:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:14:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping certain
bits that were more ready
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Here's my proposal - actually it's Nick's proposal but I want to make sure
we're on the same
page wrt steps, and I think that addresses Antoine concerns
1. create a new package, called pkglib (or whatever), located at hg
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Yeah but we've been too ambitious.
Here's my proposal - actually it's Nick's proposal but I want to make
sure we're on the same
page wrt steps, and I think that addresses Antoine concerns
1. create a new package, called
On 13 September 2012 12:32, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Here's my proposal - actually it's Nick's proposal but I want to make sure
we're on the same
page wrt steps, and I think that addresses Antoine concerns
1. create a new package, called pkglib (or whatever), located at hg
On 9/13/12 2:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
4. ask each project to pour in pkglib anything that can be reused by others
+1, although again it'll be down to the projects whether they do
actually contribute. Also this somewhat contradicts the be strict
point above, which is why I'm lukewarm on be
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Chris Jerdonek
chris.jerdo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Here's my proposal - actually it's Nick's proposal but I want to make sure
we're on the same
page wrt steps, and I think that addresses Antoine
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, the essential idea of getting those 4 modules (and support
libraries) that almost made it into 3.3 into sufficiently good shape
that they can be distributed independently of distutils2 and adopted
as a dependency
Hi,
Le 13/09/2012 10:34, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
Actually, I'd be happy to do the rearrangement needed to turn pkgutil
into a package rather than the current single module.
I very much prefer not mixing pkgutil (dealing with packages that you
import) and build/distribution/installation support
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
Le 13/09/2012 10:34, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
Actually, I'd be happy to do the rearrangement needed to turn pkgutil
into a package rather than the current single module.
I very much prefer not mixing pkgutil (dealing
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
Le 13/09/2012 10:34, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
Actually, I'd be happy to do the rearrangement needed to turn pkgutil
into a package rather than the current single module.
I very much prefer not mixing pkgutil (dealing
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:14:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping
Hello
I was wondering if anyone knows if the removed Lib/packaging directory
landed in some other places after it was removed.
We have http://hg.python.org/distutils2 be the 'packaging' version is a
full py3-renamed version we need to keep mirrored
Cheers
Tarek
Hi,
Lib/packaging is in the repository history, and in my backup clones, but
it’s not visible in any branch head as we have no branch for 3.4 yet. I
can bring the directory back with a simple Mercurial command.
However, it’s not clear to me that we want to do that. At the inception
of the
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:02:42 -0400
Éric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
Lib/packaging is in the repository history, and in my backup clones, but
it’s not visible in any branch head as we have no branch for 3.4 yet. I
can bring the directory back with a simple Mercurial command.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Éric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
Lib/packaging is in the repository history, and in my backup clones, but
it’s not visible in any branch head as we have no branch for 3.4 yet. I
can bring the directory back with a simple Mercurial command.
However,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Éric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
“find a PEP dictator and propose changes”. And when I started the
thread about removing packaging in 3.3, hundreds of replies discussed
changing the whole distutils architecture, splitting the project,
exploring new systems,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Éric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
“find a PEP dictator and propose changes”. And when I started the
thread about removing packaging in 3.3, hundreds of replies discussed
changing the
I'm happy to note that as of version 0.6.28 distutils (the setuptools
fork)
You certainly mean distribute. :-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Éric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
“find a PEP dictator and propose changes”. And when I started the
thread about removing packaging in 3.3, hundreds of replies discussed
changing
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:07:42 -0400, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Ãric Araujo e...@netwok.org wrote:
âfind a PEP dictator and propose changesâ. And when I started the
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping certain
bits that were more ready than others was discussed. Perhaps the best
way forward is to put it back in bits, with the most finished (and PEP
36 matches
Mail list logo
