Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-26 Thread Chris Withers
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 this to be

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-26 Thread Alex Clark
On 2010-04-26, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk 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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-18 Thread Alex Clark
On 2010-04-16, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Chris Withers
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Hanno Schlichting
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Tres Seaver
-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$

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Casey Duncan
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.

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Martin Aspeli
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Charlie Clark
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Tres Seaver
-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.

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Tres Seaver
-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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Shane Hathaway
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-16 Thread Martin Aspeli
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-12 Thread Tres Seaver
-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 exact problem

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-11 Thread Chris Withers
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 name

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-10 Thread Alex Clark
Hi Hanno, On 2010-04-10, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu 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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Repackaged PIL 1.1.7

2010-04-10 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Alex Clark acl...@aclark.net 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