On 2010-04-26, Chris Withers wrote:
> I don't believe this to be the case, so I dropped Fred a mail.
>
> Here's his response:
>
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > Hi Chris, thanks for the heads up.
> >
> > Not sure what's going on here; PIL is traditionally installed in
> > site-packages/PIL so that every
Chris Withers wrote:
>> You would be wrong, as you would know if you had tried running the
>> effbot's packages inside an eggified environment: he is actively
>> hostile to changes which would make this all go away, which leaves us
>> with the necessity of forking his release.
I don't believe thi
On 2010-04-16, 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?
+1.
I think the distribute fork has proven that sometimes this is necessary,
and that a fork like this can succeed. Here is a package that *sho
Hi Tres,
On 17 April 2010 00:12, Tres Seaver 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 recently,
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
___
-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
On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 16.04.2010, 17:42 Uhr, schrieb Casey Duncan :
>
>> 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 virtualenv
-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 activ
Am 16.04.2010, 17:42 Uhr, schrieb Casey Duncan :
> 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
> scripts that only po
> 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 appropriatel
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.do
-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_pi
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Chris Withers 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" doesn't.
All the
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
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> After I get some positive feedback, I'll put this into the downloads
> section on bitbucket and would be happy to see it copied to the usual
> dist.* places :)
It's now available at
http://bitbucket.org/hannosch/pil-117-distribute/downlo
-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 you the
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 you the exact problem the official distribution has
> with setuptools. It uses a package
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Alex Clark wrote:
> A couple questions:
>
> (1) Just curious have you seen any issues with PIL and Zope 2
> along these lines:
> 04:45 < wiggy> argh, PIL 1.1.7 breaks Zope
> 06:42 < aclark> wiggy: how?
> 06:42 < wiggy> aclark: it includes an ImageFile mod
Hi Hanno,
On 2010-04-10, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I took the time and repackaged PIL 1.1.7 for distribute / setuptools
> based on Chris work for 1.1.6.
>
> There's a fork on bitbucket [1] with my changes. bitbucket is not
> behaving right now, so I put up a source dist on jarn.com [2].
Hi.
I took the time and repackaged PIL 1.1.7 for distribute / setuptools
based on Chris work for 1.1.6.
There's a fork on bitbucket [1] with my changes. bitbucket is not
behaving right now, so I put up a source dist on jarn.com [2].
In order to generate the manifest I used setuptools_hg which is
20 matches
Mail list logo
