Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-07 Thread John
On Sep 27, 11:42 am, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2:09 am, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > behaviour with a specific invocation of 'setup.py'. But how can I > > disallow this from within the 'setup.py' program, so my users don't > > have to be aware of this unex

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-04 Thread Gabriel Genellina
En Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:21:04 -0300, Max Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�: > "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> This recent blog post contains step-by-step instructions on using >> free tools to compile python extensions: >>

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-03 Thread kyosohma
On Oct 2, 11:00 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > En Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:11:24 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi?: > > > Holden indicates that VS2003 is the current compiler used for the > > official Python distribution. Do you know how to use that program to > > compile an exe?

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-03 Thread Max Erickson
"Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > This recent blog post contains step-by-step instructions on using > free tools to compile python extensions: > > -- ... The package available here: http://www.develer.com/oss/GccWinB

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-02 Thread Gabriel Genellina
En Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:11:24 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�: > Holden indicates that VS2003 is the current compiler used for the > official Python distribution. Do you know how to use that program to > compile an exe? Open the program, press F1 and read the documentation provided by its ve

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-10-02 Thread kyosohma
On Sep 27, 10:44 am, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What would it entail to do this? Using py2exe + some installer (like > > Inno Setup) to create an installer that basically copies/installs the > > files into the site-packages folder or wherever the user ch

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-27 Thread Fredrik Lundh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What would it entail to do this? Using py2exe + some installer (like > Inno Setup) to create an installer that basically copies/installs the > files into the site-packages folder or wherever the user chooses? if the setup.py file is properly built, "python setup.py bdis

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-27 Thread Steve Holden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sep 26, 5:52 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itsel

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-27 Thread Istvan Albert
On Sep 26, 2:09 am, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > behaviour with a specific invocation of 'setup.py'. But how can I > disallow this from within the 'setup.py' program, so my users don't > have to be aware of this unexpected default behaviour? I don't have the answer for this, but I can

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-27 Thread kyosohma
On Sep 26, 5:52 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Fredrik Lundh wrote: > >>> Paul Boddie wrote: > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > prominently on

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Steve Holden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fredrik Lundh wrote: >>> Paul Boddie wrote: P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built packages o

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread kyosohma
On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Paul Boddie wrote: > > >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > >> prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > >> packages or installers. > > > for th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Steve Holden
Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most >> prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built >> packages or installers. > > for the record, I'd love to see a group of volunteers doing stuff like > th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Paul Boddie
On 26 Sep, 14:23, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > > prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > > packages or installers. > > for the record, I'd love to see a group

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Fredrik Lundh
Paul Boddie wrote: > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > packages or installers. for the record, I'd love to see a group of volunteers doing stuff like this for Windows. there are plenty

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Paul Boddie
On 26 Sep, 13:44, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do I understand that correctly that essentially you're saying: if you want > your software released for a certain distro, package it up for it the way > it's supposed to be? I can understand that and said so myself - but then, > th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
> I think most of the evolution has been in the surrounding tools, > although stuff like the new Debian Python policy could be complicating > factors. But I don't think the dependency stuff has changed that much > over the years. It might be, yet one thing is for sure: there have been various time

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Paul Boddie
On 26 Sep, 12:48, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Quoting me...] > > However, the argument that a dependency manager cannot deal with > > different system packages is a weak one: apt and Smart have shown that > > dependency management can be decoupled from package management. > >

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
> If you look at PEP 345... > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/ > > ...you'll see that the dependency information described is quite close > to how such information is represented in Debian packages and with > other dependency management systems. This isn't an accident because > the auth

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Paul Boddie
On 26 Sep, 11:16, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Generally speaking, I think the real problem here is the clash > between "cultures" of dependency-handling. But it's certainly beyond > setuptools scope to cope with every imaginable package management system > out there, and provi

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Ben Finney
"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > How would I modify my 'setup.py' script so that its default > > behaviour, when dependencies are not met, is not "download and > > install dependencies via setuptools" but instead "exit with error > > message"? > > easy_instal

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Ben Finney wrote: > "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ben Finney schrieb: >> > To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the specified >> > dependencies are satisfied" behaviour, without the "... and, if >> > not, download and install them the Setuptools Way" behaviour. >> > >> >

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Ben Finney
"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney schrieb: > > To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the specified > > dependencies are satisfied" behaviour, without the "... and, if > > not, download and install them the Setuptools Way" behaviour. > > > > Instead, I just want the def

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-26 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
Ben Finney schrieb: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> How can I, as the distributor of a package using setuptools, gain >> the benefits of dependency declaration and checking, without the >> drawback of unexpected and potentially unwanted download and >> installation? > > To clarify:

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

2007-09-25 Thread Ben Finney
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How can I, as the distributor of a package using setuptools, gain > the benefits of dependency declaration and checking, without the > drawback of unexpected and potentially unwanted download and > installation? To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the