Hey,
[eggs in debian]
Okay, I can see this as an additional, more stably maintained resource
of eggs than the cheeseshop. That might indeed be helpful.
Now, how would you use the Grok gated community with the sqlalchemy
gated community if they had common dependencies, and those dependencies
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On 9/27/07, Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
There is one I thought of, but it's a bit backwards.
Essentially, Debian has a repository of mostly unmodified original egg
tarballs. And, they've already
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 10:09:23AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:22 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
I think that replacing 'index_url' with a gated community of packages
is the only path to sanity here: the contract of the Cheeseshop (share
new releases of all packages with
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-9-26 22:13 +0200:
...
I am the one who wants to have
the final say in what versions of packages. I want to use.
A linux
distributor needs to have one working set of packages, instead.
He may have one set of packages -- but he knows that not all
of them work
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:22:48PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
Anybody running against the Cheeseshop today is *more* on the bleeding
edge than a sysadmin whose production boxes are running 'sid': Debian
has cultural constraits, even for that distro, which are vastly more
restricted than the
Hey,
We have a situation where we have developers, not maintainers, uploading
new versions of packages. There will be no integrated testing done for
all software built on all packages in the cheeseshop. Again, I can see
similarities, but I don't believe linux distributions have *exactly* our
Hey,
On 9/27/07, Brian Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
There is one I thought of, but it's a bit backwards.
Essentially, Debian has a repository of mostly unmodified original egg
tarballs. And, they've already done the hard work of maintaining sane
dependencies.
So, why not
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-9-25 19:57 +0200:
...
If you choose for flexibility first, people will need to think about
versions all the time.
I follow Tres argumentation: somehow the Linux distributors
have this problem mostly solved:
Standard distributions come with a set of known working
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-9-25 19:57 +0200:
...
If you choose for flexibility first, people will need to think about
versions all the time.
I follow Tres argumentation: somehow the Linux distributors
have this problem mostly solved:
While I don't dispute we should
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
This is certainly an interesting approach. I'd be curious how you
would garden this known working set. Martijn makes a pretty good
case for maintaining such working sets close to the package in
question (e.g.
On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On 9/25/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'm skeptical that you are going to get these changes in setuptools.
I'm not crazy about them myself as they make writing setup files even
more complicated. I'd much rather have
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-9-25 17:22 +0200:
...
Should we then encourage everyone to hardcode version numbers in their
setup.py's dependencies list?
I think this goes against building applications from components --
as it drastically increases the probability of conflicts.
Components should
Hey,
On 9/25/07, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2007-9-25 17:22 +0200:
...
Should we then encourage everyone to hardcode version numbers in their
setup.py's dependencies list?
I think this goes against building applications from components --
as it
13 matches
Mail list logo
