Ryan Lovett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
>> Don't forget your package is already included in some distribution
>> and then widely available.
>
> Given that python-ldap is packaged by almost everyone, (excluding
> Microsoft, Apple, and Sun) what is there
Alain Spineux wrote:
> Don't forget your package is already included in some distribution
> and then widely available.
Well, the coordination with distribution maintainers is somewhat
difficult anyway. But the distributor has to take care of dependencies.
> The best effort solution is to publish
Ryan Lovett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
>> Don't forget your package is already included in some distribution
>> and then widely available.
>
> Given that python-ldap is packaged by almost everyone, (excluding
> Microsoft, Apple, and Sun) what is there
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Alain Spineux wrote:
> Don't forget your package is already included in some distribution
> and then widely available.
Given that python-ldap is packaged by almost everyone, (excluding
Microsoft, Apple, and Sun) what is there to gain with this binary
dist
Don't forget your package is already included in some distribution
and then widely available.
Personally I'm happy to have eggs functionality to deploy the same egg
on multiple identical machine with custom configuration.
The best effort solution is to publish the version you can and all
spontan
David Leonard wrote:
> Perhaps there might be some interest in people running buildbot slaves?
> (http://buildbot.net/)
> Michael, you could run a trusted buildmaster, and helpers would run
> buildslaves that connect to your master.
Frankly I don't have currently the time for diving into it.
We
Perhaps there might be some interest in people running buildbot slaves?
(http://buildbot.net/)
Michael, you could run a trusted buildmaster, and helpers would run
buildslaves that connect to your master.
Michael Ströder wrote:
Torsten Kurbad wrote:
I'd like to release 2.3.1 soon.
s
Torsten Kurbad wrote:
>> I'd like to release 2.3.1 soon.
> still one question: Do you plan to upload some .eggs to PyPI then?
> I meanwhile successfully build eggs for i686-linux as well as Mac OS
> X 10.4 PPC (Intel platforms should work the same way) using Py 2.3 +
> 2.4.
>
> Nice to have would
Alain Spineux wrote:
> I did this, and it looks to be working.
Ouch! Modules/constants.c was not comitted to CVS.
Thanks.
> Also with my unicode extension :-)
I knew you would ask for it. I will follow-up on this later...
Ciao, Michael.
-
Alain Spineux wrote:
> Hi again
>
> Could you add a note about how to build an egg at the end of INSALL file ?
> To avoid to spend 10min looking for the correct syntax in the
> setuptools documentation :-)
>
The setup.py comes with a very neat option that could have saved you
lots of trouble an
Hi again
Could you add a note about how to build an egg at the end of INSALL file ?
To avoid to spend 10min looking for the correct syntax in the
setuptools documentation :-)
python setup.py bdist_egg
thanks
On 7/17/07, Alain Spineux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did this, and it looks to be
I did this, and it looks to be working.
Also with my unicode extension :-)
diff -r -c python-ldap-2.3.1/Modules/constants.c python-ldap/Modules/constants.c
*** python-ldap-2.3.1/Modules/constants.c Tue Jun 5 11:56:15 2007
--- python-ldap/Modules/constants.c Tue Jul 17 15:26:14 2007
***
Hi
I tried the CVS head and got problem
First I got this error when building the egg
cc: unrecognized option '-R/usr/local/openldap-2.3/lib'
The full command is
/kolab/bin/cc -pthread -shared
build/temp.linux-i686-2.4/Modules/LDAPObject.o
build/temp.linux-i686-2.4/Modules/ldapcontrol.o
build/te
Timur Izhbulatov wrote:
>
> According to [1] buildout supports the 'find-links' option which
> should solve your problem.
Yes, I actively use that option to support our local eggs... ;o)
So, not to get into some misunderstandings here: You'd like to keep the
_precompiled_ .eggs in sf.net , not ju
Torsten Kurbad wrote:
> Timur Izhbulatov wrote:
>> Don't forget that the easy_install command works perfectly with
>> project download pages on sf.net. So, I don't think it is necessary to
>> upload .eggs to PyPI.
> The question for me is: Does zc.buildout support this method. To clearify: We
> ar
Timur Izhbulatov wrote:
> Don't forget that the easy_install command works perfectly with
> project download pages on sf.net. So, I don't think it is necessary to
> upload .eggs to PyPI.
The question for me is: Does zc.buildout support this method. To clearify: We
are developing projects that are
Torsten Kurbad wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>> I'd like to release 2.3.1 soon.
> still one question: Do you plan to upload some .eggs to PyPI then?
> I meanwhile successfully build eggs for i686-linux as well as Mac OS X 10.4
> PPC (Intel platforms should work the same way) using Py 2.3 + 2.4.
>
> Nice t
Hi Michael,
> I'd like to release 2.3.1 soon.
still one question: Do you plan to upload some .eggs to PyPI then?
I meanwhile successfully build eggs for i686-linux as well as Mac OS X 10.4 PPC
(Intel platforms should work the same way) using Py 2.3 + 2.4.
Nice to have would be an egg for the Wind
18 matches
Mail list logo
