Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The confusion surrounding PIL almost makes me want to write some sort of
über
document listing the orginal problem along with all the various
hack-arounds.
Both of these show
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Yeah, the warning is a wart, but what's the problem?
The problem is that installing his tarball with setuptools puts
everything at the top level. import ImageFile works, but import
PIL or any from PIL import ImageFile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
ch...@server2:~$ python virtualenv.py --no-site-packages test_pil
New python executable in test_pil/bin/python
Installing setuptools.done.
ch...@server2:~$ cd test_pil/
ch...@server2:~/test_pil$
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
ch...@server2:~$ python virtualenv.py --no-site-packages test_pil
New python executable in test_pil/bin/python
Installing setuptools.done.
Easy or not doesn't matter: he flat refuses.
To play devil's advocate: Why don't we just fork PIL entirely?
I appreciate that a 1.1.7 came out recently, but before that 1.1.6
lasted three years. I doubt it'd be hard to keep up with a fork. The
advantage is that we could package it
Am 16.04.2010, 17:42 Uhr, schrieb Casey Duncan ca...@pandora.com:
activate is a bit of a kludge, though it seems easy enough to just have
multiple shells open if activate screws with certain tasks. I'm curious
though, how do you switch virtualenvs? I can envision creating wrapper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Casey Duncan wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
You do know that the 'activate' bit pollutes your shell environment,
right? I use virtualenv daily, with dozens of them on my system at any
one time, and *never* use activate.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Easy or not doesn't matter: he flat refuses.
To play devil's advocate: Why don't we just fork PIL entirely?
I appreciate that a 1.1.7 came out recently, but before that 1.1.6
lasted three years. I doubt it'd be hard to
On 04/16/2010 10:12 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
Maybe we should just renew the request to push PILwoTk to PyPI[1] and
update our dependencies.
[1] https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-October/029968.html
+1, I only use PILwoTk and I'd rather get it from PyPI.
Shane
Hi Tim,
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tim Hoffman zutes...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Iain
I have a number of projects on app engine. Some using repoze.bfg
(www.polytechnic.wa.edu.au (paid work), www.fishandlily.com.au (my
small business)) and others just using zope.component and bobo (not
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 21:52, Darryl Cousins darryljcous...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tim,
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tim Hoffman zutes...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Iain
I have a number of projects on app engine. Some using repoze.bfg
(www.polytechnic.wa.edu.au (paid work),
Hi Tres,
On 17 April 2010 00:12, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Easy or not doesn't matter: he flat refuses.
To play devil's advocate: Why don't we just fork PIL entirely?
I appreciate that a 1.1.7 came out
12 matches
Mail list logo
