Tres Seaver wrote:
Benji York wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I like distribution as a place to put packages that aren't ready for
PyPI. Unfortunately, we've put a lot of packages in PyPI that aren't
ready IMO.
I suggest we put them in PyPI earlier and use "Development Status :: 2 -
Pre-Alpha". O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2007, at 20:07 , Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to think of the "known good" set as a "PyPI subset",
>> which is maintained in the same way that the various Debian distro
>> lists
>> are: they may e
On 4 Sep 2007, at 19:15 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2007-9-4 09:15 +0100:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
As far as I understand your use case, i twould already be covered
by my
original proposal: you always have the option to locally override
what's
specified in the work
On 4 Sep 2007, at 16:13 , Jim Fulton wrote:
How would the "known_working_versions" be used? You haven't
specified that.
You're right, I forgot that. In buildout.cfg, you'd then say:
[buildout]
versions = egg:grok==0.11
which would load the grok 0.11 egg before doing anything else,
ins
On 4 Sep 2007, at 20:07 , Tres Seaver wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2007-9-4 09:12 +0200:
...
Linux distros take an approach that does not fit in the python world
though: their meta-set is a release with its own package
database. In
other words every distribution/meta-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2007-9-4 09:12 +0200:
>> ...
>> Linux distros take an approach that does not fit in the python world
>> though: their meta-set is a release with its own package database. In
>> other words every distri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benji York wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> I like distribution as a place to put packages that aren't ready for
>> PyPI. Unfortunately, we've put a lot of packages in PyPI that aren't
>> ready IMO.
>
> I suggest we put them in PyPI earlier and use "
Fred Drake wrote:
On 9/4/07, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest we put them in PyPI earlier and use "Development Status :: 2 -
Pre-Alpha". Of course, we don't want to spam PyPI with /too/ many
uncooked packages.
It would be good if distutils/setuptools/PyPI set this up based on t
On 9/4/07, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest we put them in PyPI earlier and use "Development Status :: 2 -
> Pre-Alpha". Of course, we don't want to spam PyPI with /too/ many
> uncooked packages.
It would be good if distutils/setuptools/PyPI set this up based on the
label in the
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2007-9-4 09:12 +0200:
> ...
>Linux distros take an approach that does not fit in the python world
>though: their meta-set is a release with its own package database. In
>other words every distribution/meta-set has its own PyPI instance database.
Not sure that I understa
Jim Fulton wrote:
I like distribution as a place to put packages that aren't ready for
PyPI. Unfortunately, we've put a lot of packages in PyPI that aren't
ready IMO.
I suggest we put them in PyPI earlier and use "Development Status :: 2 -
Pre-Alpha". Of course, we don't want to spam PyPI
Chris Withers wrote at 2007-9-4 09:15 +0100:
>Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> As far as I understand your use case, i twould already be covered by my
>> original proposal: you always have the option to locally override what's
>> specified in the working set.
>
>I think Dieter may have meant s
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-9-4 00:40 +0200:
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Therefore, it might be helpful, if the known working set would not
>> need to be a singleton (consists of just one element).
>>
>> Assume the following use case:
>>
>> I use grok to build one of my applications.
>
On Sep 3, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The only problem is that distributing grok-0.11.cfg is a bit
tedious. How about if buildout could get it from the web?
How about making it available from an egg, through a hook in egg-info
perhaps?
This is
On Sep 2, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Benji York wrote:
Baiju M wrote:
BTW, do we need to upload eggs to http://download.zope.org/
distribution/
any more ?
If we feel that depending on PyPI to install zope packages is OK,
then we can decommission /distribution/. For the commercial
projects I'm i
On 4 Sep 2007, at 10:15 , Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
As far as I understand your use case, i twould already be covered
by my original proposal: you always have the option to locally
override what's specified in the working set.
I think Dieter may have meant someth
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 2. September 2007 08:18 schrieb Andreas Jung:
--On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I reall
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
As far as I understand your use case, i twould already be covered by my
original proposal: you always have the option to locally override what's
specified in the working set.
I think Dieter may have meant something like:
[grok-0.11]
grok = 0.11
ZODB = 3.
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 4 Sep 2007, at 01:21 , Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The only problem is that distributing grok-0.11.cfg is a bit
tediou
19 matches
Mail list logo
