Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
[David Cournapeau] [Georg Brandl] I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute (instead of merely forking it under a new name, which I don't care about) is sanctioned by python-dev ? Setuptools is not a python-dev project, ergo python-dev has no official position on it. Georg is speaking for himself, albeit with the credit of his involvement in python-dev. FTR, when some extreme distribute fans proposed that the PyPI setuptools entry had to be given to distribute, people (including Guido if my memory’s not failing) sternly replied that this was rude and unwelcome. As already stated elsewhere more than once, the fact that distribute provides the setuptools Python package is a technical requirement. Regards ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
As already stated elsewhere more than once, the fact that distribute provides the setuptools Python package is a technical requirement. Ah, sorry about that, I missed it. What is that technical requirement ? Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code changes. Regards ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote: As already stated elsewhere more than once, the fact that distribute provides the setuptools Python package is a technical requirement. Ah, sorry about that, I missed it. What is that technical requirement ? Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code changes. That's not a technical requirement in any sense of the word. David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
Éric Araujo wrote: Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code changes. But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a drop-in replacement, as opposed to a different package with a different name? -- Greg ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote: Éric Araujo wrote: Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code changes. But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a drop-in replacement, as opposed to a different package with a different name? This technical reason was already explained in this mailing list back then, many times. Maybe you could read back the relevant threads for more details. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote: This technical reason was already explained in this mailing list back then, many times. Maybe a link would be useful, so that it could referenced somewhere on distribute main page ? David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote: This technical reason was already explained in this mailing list back then, many times. Maybe a link would be useful, so that it could referenced somewhere on distribute main page ? Yes, as Anatoly suggested, I'll write a Packaging FAQ page, with this point contained. Probably in the HHG2P project David -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] stdeb- setting build-depends to python-dev
On 07/01/2010 11:57 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: (And this is the right place to ask questions about stdeb.) I’m sorry, I read the message too fast. stdeb does belong on this list, I hope I didn’t sound unfriendly when I made my hasty suggestion. Thanks Andrew. Regards Hi Eric, No, I don't mind, :-) and I'm happy to be able to contribute a very tiny bit even though I can't contribute code. Thanks for the help from everybody, ST -- ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote: [David Cournapeau] [Georg Brandl] I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute (instead of merely forking it under a new name, which I don't care about) is sanctioned by python-dev ? Setuptools is not a python-dev project, ergo python-dev has no official position on it. Georg is speaking for himself, albeit with the credit of his involvement in python-dev. FTR, when some extreme distribute fans proposed that the PyPI setuptools entry had to be given to distribute, people (including Guido if my memory’s not failing) sternly replied that this was rude and unwelcome. I fail to see the difference with the present situation. easy_install setuptools gives distribute, yolk -T src -F gives distribute. Distribute is the only fork I have seen in my entire life as an open source contributor which does this. When the cython people forked pyrex, they called their fork another name, and the script had another name. Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote: [David Cournapeau] [Georg Brandl] I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute (instead of merely forking it under a new name, which I don't care about) is sanctioned by python-dev ? Setuptools is not a python-dev project, ergo python-dev has no official position on it. Georg is speaking for himself, albeit with the credit of his involvement in python-dev. FTR, when some extreme distribute fans proposed that the PyPI setuptools entry had to be given to distribute, people (including Guido if my memory’s not failing) sternly replied that this was rude and unwelcome. I fail to see the difference with the present situation. easy_install setuptools gives distribute, yolk -T src -F gives distribute. Distribute is the only fork I have seen in my entire life as an open source contributor which does this. When the cython people forked pyrex, they called their fork another name, and the script had another name. Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. Could you stop this now ? Obviously you didn't read back the threads, and didn't try to understand why we forked and the technicals details. You are just feeding the troll for the heck of it here, so stop it. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Ewing wrote: Éric Araujo wrote: Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code changes. But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a drop-in replacement, as opposed to a different package with a different name? The core issue is that distribute was intended to be useful for installing the hundreds / thousands of distribtions on PyPI which contain the line: from setuptools import setup and do so because they express dependencies and other metadata which the stock distutils version of setup() would choke on. Unless the site manager could arrange to have distribute install the 'setuptools' *package* on sys.path, distribute would have been a pointless fork. I can't comment on reasons why the project (*not* the package) might grab the 'setuptools' *project* name, as I don't use distribute itself. I don't know how much, if any, of the issue might be with the particular Debuntu packaging, either, as I never use the system python for my projects. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwva74ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4OnwCg0lRgCLTmbeBUZMFH7Bw/tXVz GWkAn2twkgnfyqh0MUi1kZOMRPCufcZE =sTyl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
[Distutils] Follow-up on bug #143 / distribute
Hello, I've fixed the issue #143 in distribute, along with some minor other points, and I will release 0.6.14 as soon as we check with Barry that it works fine upstream on Ubuntu/Debian. Other distros will follow. - Distribute issue: http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/issue/142 - Ubuntu issue: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-setuptools/+bug/601040 IOW, this removes the founded regression Distribute had with the latest setuptools release. In the meantime, if you have any other issue you would like to see addressed in this release, let me know. Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I *am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's being shipped with OS distributions is both packaged as (e.g.) python-setuptools, AND prevents people from installing the real setuptools, even in a local directory! So, David, I hope you've filed this as a bug report with both Distribute and Ubuntu, and that others will do the same for any other distribution that's shipping distribute under a misleading name and that has this behavior. My understanding when this was discussed previously, was that distribute would *only* suppress the installation of setuptools versions released *before* the corresponding version of distribute. Also, considering how widespread the setuptools isn't being maintained lie is at this point, I'm a bit concerned that some OS distributors may have been unduly influenced by it in their switching decisions. My understanding (and I would guess, that of the OS distributors' as well) was *also* based on the premise that distribute was going to track with setuptools' feature additions and bug fixes, which it clearly has not. The 0.6c11 release (last October) fixed a rather long list of bugs besides the one you reported; does anyone know if the rest are actually fixed in Distribute? ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:03 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. This is obviously fine. However, I *am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's being shipped with OS distributions is both packaged as (e.g.) python-setuptools, AND prevents people from installing the real setuptools, even in a local directory! So, David, I hope you've filed this as a bug report with both Distribute and Ubuntu, and that others will do the same for any other distribution that's shipping distribute under a misleading name and that has this behavior. Barry did it for ubuntu, zooko did a few months ago for distribute and I provided the patch for distribute (a few months ago as well). But I did not realize a few months ago that I was forced to use distribute without any fallback. On the bright side, this gave me much more respect for you and setuptools, and I admire your patience. David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I *am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's being shipped with OS distributions is both packaged as (e.g.) python-setuptools, AND prevents people from installing the real setuptools, even in a local directory! That's not the intent. You can install setuptools if you want, globally, by removing distribute. You can install also a local setuptools. If you can't do it, and your issue is not in #143, you can fill a bug in the distribute tracker. So, David, I hope you've filed this as a bug report with both Distribute and Ubuntu, and that others will do the same for any other distribution that's shipping distribute under a misleading name and that has this behavior. This is now fixed in distribute and is getting fixed in distributions that use distribute, because we work TOGETHER. My understanding when this was discussed previously, was that distribute would *only* suppress the installation of setuptools versions released *before* the corresponding version of distribute. Also, considering how widespread the setuptools isn't being maintained lie is at this point, I'm a bit concerned that some OS distributors may have been unduly influenced by it in their switching decisions. Setuptools has not been maintained over the last two years. You just have made a few changes lately, in reaction of the fork. Don't worry about the OS distributors, they are aware of the situation/ Again, a simple svn log in your repository when the fork happened and when OS distributions have switched, is enough to see that setuptools was not maintained. If you are back on track and want to maintain it again, great ! maybe the fork will dissapear, for the very same reason it appeared: to avoid being locked by your 'glacial pace' (that's your words) My understanding (and I would guess, that of the OS distributors' as well) was *also* based on the premise that distribute was going to track with setuptools' feature additions and bug fixes, which it clearly has not. The 0.6c11 release (last October) fixed a rather long list of bugs besides the one you reported; does anyone know if the rest are actually fixed in Distribute? I have tracked that one single huge commit, and tried to backport everything. Obvisouly I missed something,. But I will double check again before I release 0.6.14, to avoid any flames here. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I *am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's being shipped with OS distributions is both packaged as (e.g.) python-setuptools, AND prevents people from installing the real setuptools, even in a local directory! That's not the intent. You can install setuptools if you want, globally, by removing distribute. Right, because remove python-setuptools (which is distribute) is not impractical at all on ubuntu. David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:03 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: My understanding (and I would guess, that of the OS distributors' as well) was *also* based on the premise that distribute was going to track with setuptools' feature additions and bug fixes, which it clearly has not. The 0.6c11 release (last October) fixed a rather long list of bugs besides the one you reported; does anyone know if the rest are actually fixed in Distribute? There is another potential issue with the edit mode, but I have not been able to track it down yet, and as such have not reported it (nor checked if it was already reported). Basically, easy_install -eNb somedir somepackage does not always work, with some strange error. I cannot always reproduce it. David ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tarek Ziadé wrote: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote: At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If I were PJE, I would be very mad. I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I *am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's being shipped with OS distributions is both packaged as (e.g.) python-setuptools, AND prevents people from installing the real setuptools, even in a local directory! That's not the intent. You can install setuptools if you want, globally, by removing distribute. You can install also a local setuptools. If you can't do it, and your issue is not in #143, you can fill a bug in the distribute tracker. So, David, I hope you've filed this as a bug report with both Distribute and Ubuntu, and that others will do the same for any other distribution that's shipping distribute under a misleading name and that has this behavior. This is now fixed in distribute and is getting fixed in distributions that use distribute, because we work TOGETHER. My understanding when this was discussed previously, was that distribute would *only* suppress the installation of setuptools versions released *before* the corresponding version of distribute. Also, considering how widespread the setuptools isn't being maintained lie is at this point, I'm a bit concerned that some OS distributors may have been unduly influenced by it in their switching decisions. Setuptools has not been maintained over the last two years. You just have made a few changes lately, in reaction of the fork. Don't worry about the OS distributors, they are aware of the situation/ Again, a simple svn log in your repository when the fork happened and when OS distributions have switched, is enough to see that setuptools was not maintained. If you are back on track and want to maintain it again, great ! maybe the fork will dissapear, for the very same reason it appeared: to avoid being locked by your 'glacial pace' (that's your words) My understanding (and I would guess, that of the OS distributors' as well) was *also* based on the premise that distribute was going to track with setuptools' feature additions and bug fixes, which it clearly has not. The 0.6c11 release (last October) fixed a rather long list of bugs besides the one you reported; does anyone know if the rest are actually fixed in Distribute? I have tracked that one single huge commit, and tried to backport everything. Obvisouly I missed something,. But I will double check again before I release 0.6.14, to avoid any flames here. In that spirit, Tarek, you need to stop saying setuptools is unmaintained for the last 2 years: PJE objects to it as unfactual, as do I. THe release last October makes that statement untrue on its face. Please note as well that nothing about this is criticism of the choice to fork, or any work you and others have done on distrbute, the PEPs, distutils2, etc. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwvjjEACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7CDACcDhcinnL2WzzH75KIeQrmNFcB sg0An205oYtcSFH+eTh0h3craZTgcpgo =9zjC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
At 03:23 PM 7/3/2010 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: In that spirit, Tarek, you need to stop saying setuptools is unmaintained for the last 2 years: PJE objects to it as unfactual, as do I. THe release last October makes that statement untrue on its face. Additionally, I would like to have some reassurance that when I begin releasing 0.7 alpha versions, that the distribute community is not going to start accusing me (as Tarek just did) of doing things in reaction to them, or to sabotage them, or say that I'm trying to force people to switch back to setuptools... And ideally, I would like them to refrain from implementing technological measures to interfere with setuptools' normal upgrade process. Since last September, the current release of setuptools has been downloaded from PyPI more times than all releases of distribute *combined*. I am therefore much more concerned with providing normal updates to the setuptools user base, than I am with interfering with people who really *want* to use distribute, for whatever reason. However, by the same token, it also means that I have no wish to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to work *around* distribute! I would much prefer to advise people who wish to upgrade setuptools, to simply uninstall distribute before upgrading, rather than to have to implement technological measures to address the situation. But the last time that I advised that people upgrading setuptools needed to uninstall distribute first, I received accusations that I was trying to undermine distribute and spread FUD by telling people to uninstall it. (My time for working on open source development these days is limited, and tends to come in chunks, especially around holidays. There were at least two such opportunities earlier this year where I considered tackling some of my smaller planned features for 0.7, and then thought about the likely hassle of actually *releasing* any of that work, and then promptly turned my attention to other, less-controversial projects.) ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] setuptools' Feature feature
P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com writes: That's because it's essentially deprecated - an experimental thing that turned out to be, well, a failed experiment. An experiment that produces a reliable result is a success. If you can reliably say that the feature is not worth it, that's a successful experiment :-) -- \ “In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific | `\ pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.” —John | _o__)Kenneth Galbraith, 1970-06-07 | Ben Finney ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] setuptools' Feature feature
[P.J. Eby] I hope distutils2 allows you to declare extensions optional; it's such a common use case. I thought this was already in distutils, but it is actually in distutils2. Thanks for asking that, it would have been bad to lack it. Regards ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
