Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

Robert Collins writes: > On 28 October 2015 at 18:02, Ben Finney wrote: > > Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can > > participate without needing to sign up with any particular service > > provider. > > One has to sign up with the mailing list, so there's no functional > d

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 18:03, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: ... >> I've run it past Donald and he has a number of concerns - I think >> we'll need to discuss them here, and possibly in another hangout, to >> get a path forward. > > Now that I've

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 17:50, Marcus Smith wrote: >> >> Current draft text in rendered form at: >> https://gist.github.com/rbtcollins/666c12aec869237f7cf7 >> > > Thanks for working on this. > Overall I like the idea, but have some comments/questions > > > 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's star

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 02:28, Daniel Holth wrote: > It looks like you would normally be able to say just 'flit' in the > bootstrap-requires or provided-by, unless the requirements were for build > code bundled inside the sdist. Right - you'd say flit in bootstrap-requires, and pip would cache base

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation (was: build system abstraction PEP)

On 28 October 2015 at 18:02, Ben Finney wrote: > Marcus Smith writes: > >> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as >> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : ) > > Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can participate > without needing to sign up with

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On Oct 27, 2015 10:58 PM, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins >> wrote: >> > Since Nathaniel seems busy, I've taken the liberty of drafting a >> > narrow PEP based on the conversations that a

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: > > Since Nathaniel seems busy, I've taken the liberty of drafting a > > narrow PEP based on the conversations that arose from the prior > > discussion. > > > > It (naturally) has

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > Since Nathaniel seems busy, I've taken the liberty of drafting a > narrow PEP based on the conversations that arose from the prior > discussion. > > It (naturally) has my unique flavor, but builds on the work Nathaniel > had put together, s

[Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation (was: build system abstraction PEP)

Marcus Smith writes: > 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as > PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : ) Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can participate without needing to sign up with any particular service provider. Your proposal would hav

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

> > > Current draft text in rendered form at: > https://gist.github.com/rbtcollins/666c12aec869237f7cf7 > > Thanks for working on this. Overall I like the idea, but have some comments/questions 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as PRs to pypa/interoperability-pe

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 at 02:17 Robert Collins wrote: > On 27 October 2015 at 21:47, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > Another simple solution for this particular case is to add conflict rules > > between packages that provide the same requirement (that's what php's > > composer do IIRC). > > > > The c

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On 27 October 2015 at 13:12, Daniel Holth wrote: > We must do the hard work to support Unicode file names, and spaces and > accent marks in home directory names (historically a problem on Windows), in > our packaging system. It is the right thing to do. It is not the publisher's > fault that your

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: > The drawback of .zip is file size since it compresses each file > individually rather than giving the compression algorithm a larger input, > it's a great format otherwise. Ubiquitous including Apple iOS packages, > Java, word processor file

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

It looks like you would normally be able to say just 'flit' in the bootstrap-requires or provided-by, unless the requirements were for build code bundled inside the sdist. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM Robert Collins wrote: > On 27 October 2015 at 14:06, Robert Collins > wrote: > > > We can r

[Distutils] (no subject)

Thanks to Nick Coghlan and Barry Warsaw we've setup a new SIG dedicated to discussing python features from different distributions point of view. Here is Nick's reasoning: > With the Python 3 migration, and the growth in interest in user level > package management for development purposes, what do

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

The drawback of .zip is file size since it compresses each file individually rather than giving the compression algorithm a larger input, it's a great format otherwise. Ubiquitous including Apple iOS packages, Java, word processor file formats. And most Python packages are small. We must do the ha

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

Mr. grumpy pants, Now you're trolling us by describing flit. Older versions of pip could be able to install it, just add a setup.py shim. Nearly trivial. A new simple build system could come with the agile build system support. It's just a matter of timing. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:49 PM Donal

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On 26 October 2015 at 06:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Here's a second round of text towards making a build-system > independent interface between pip and source trees/sdists. My idea > this time is to take a divide-and-conquer approach: this text tries to > summarize all the stuff that it seemed l

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On 27 October 2015 at 21:47, David Cournapeau wrote: > Another simple solution for this particular case is to add conflict rules > between packages that provide the same requirement (that's what php's > composer do IIRC). > > The case of safety against malicious forks is handled quite explicitly

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On October 26, 2015 at 3:36:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) > wrote: > >> > TL;DR > >> - > >> > >> If we: > >> > >> - implement a real resolver, and > >> - add a notio

Re: [Distutils] What's special about numpy, scipy, ...was: Remove distutils, was: red, green, refactor ...

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 26.10.2015 um 20:07 schrieb Nathaniel Smith: >> On Oct 26, 2015 6:59 AM, "Wayne Werner" > > wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Chris Barker > > wrote: >> >>

Re: [Distutils] What's special about numpy, scipy, ...was: Remove distutils, was: red, green, refactor ...

Am 26.10.2015 um 20:07 schrieb Nathaniel Smith: > On Oct 26, 2015 6:59 AM, "Wayne Werner" > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Chris Barker > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Thomas Güttler > mailto:g