Re: [Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
2012/3/15 PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: If there's a binary egg available, how do I know whether it's needed without trying a source install and seeing if it works? The egg will have a platform string in its name in that case. Otherwise, it'll be just package-version-pyX.X.egg. (Actually, on reflection, I'm not sure I understand your question: needed relative to what? to downloading the source version?) Correct. In the context of I'll use source if I can. I need a binary if there are C files to compile (even for things like optional speedup code). I guess there's an implied requirement that I can tell what I need just by inspection of the types of distribution available.because obviously there's always the option of trying a source install and seeing how it works. In a wider sense, I'm thinking about how something like pysetup install should work if binary formats are supported. If a package supplies source, and a variety of eggs, but not wininst or new-format package, then what should pysetup install (or the user, if auto-conversion isn't implemented) choose? From what you say above, the answer appears to be the egg if its name has a platform string, otherwise the source. That's basically what I was getting at. Thanks, Paul. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] easy_install problem
I tried and following is the output.
nitin@nitin-desktop:/opt/ros/diamondback/ros$ sudo easy_install -vv -U
rosinstall vcstools
Searching for rosinstall
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'rosinstall' (maybe misspelled?)
Scanning index of all packages (this may take a while)
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
No local packages or download links found for rosinstall
error: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('rosinstall')
Just a wild thought, could it be because that i can not access
internet from shell while i could do so from browser. May be some
settings which are not available to shell from gnome. This is how my
network is currently configured:
$ cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.20.16.45
gateway 192.20.16.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
Try running your command with '-vv' to increase the verbosity, and with
PYDISTUTILS_DEBUG=true in your environment; you may get back more detailed
error information that may assist you in finding out what's happening with
the proxy.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Nitin Dhiman nitinkdhi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
My OS is Ubuntu Lucid lynx 10.04, with Python disutils
python-setuptools version 0.6.10-4ubuntu1
I am behind proxy. http_proxy and https_proxy is defined as
http://username:passwd@proxy-ip:port
I am trying to use easy_install to install rosinstall using following
command:
nitin@nitin-desktop:~/Downloads$ sudo easy_install -U rosinstall vcstools
[sudo] password for nitin:
Searching for rosinstall
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'rosinstall' (maybe misspelled?)
Scanning index of all packages (this may take a while)
Reading http://pypi.python.org/simple/
Download error: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages
may not be found!
No local packages or download links found for rosinstall
error: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('rosinstall')
This repeats couple of times. Is this issue related to proxy??? I do
not face any problem when having a direct internet connnection.
I had tried using pip also but i gets problems. Following is the
output of log file.
Downloading/unpacking rosinstall
Getting page http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall
Could not fetch URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall:
urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known
Will skip URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/rosinstall when looking
for download links for rosinstall
Getting page http://pypi.python.org/simple/
Could not fetch URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/: urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known
Will skip URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/ when looking for
download links for rosinstall
Cannot fetch index base URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/
Cannot find requirement rosinstall, nor fetch index URL
http://pypi.python.org/simple/
Exception information:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pip.py, line 252, in main
self.run(options, args)
File /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pip.py, line 408, in run
requirement_set.install_files(finder, force_root_egg_info=self.bundle)
File /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pip.py, line 1750, in
install_files
url = finder.find_requirement(req_to_install, upgrade=self.upgrade)
File /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pip.py, line 996, in
find_requirement
url_name = self._find_url_name(Link(self.index_urls[0]), url_name,
req)
File /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pip.py, line 1073, in
_find_url_name
raise DistributionNotFound('Cannot find requirement %s, nor fetch
index URL %s' % (req, index_url))
DistributionNotFound: Cannot find requirement rosinstall, nor fetch
index URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/
The package I am trying to install is from ROS (www.ros.org) . The
community of ROS has suggested to ask the solution in this community .
I hope some one can solve the problem.
Could this problem be because of any proxy rules I am not aware of
these.
regards
prince
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote: Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the filename if it matters? isn't that supposed to be the source release ? Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand. Why would someone create a binary release when it's pure Python ? I wish I knew. But people do - mostly egg format files. But I think this is partly because of the confusion between egg-as-distribution-format vs egg-as-directly-usable-object that PJE alludes to in his emails. I sometimes create platform-independent eggs to indicate a Python-version dependency. Until d2/p, there was no other way to indicate dependence on a particular Python version. Note that the terminology is confusing. I think eggs are defined to be a binary distribution format, so eggs containing C extensions are referred to as platform-specific. You raise a good point about how to deal with optional extensions. There's no meta data to indicate whether there are optional extensions that might guide an automated installer. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote: Why would someone create a binary release when it's pure Python ? There are a lot of users (Windows and Mac anyway) that like a nice point+click installer, and don't know (and shouldn't have to) whether there is any compiled code in there. It's nice to support that. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/ORR (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote: Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the filename if it matters? isn't that supposed to be the source release ? Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand. Why would someone create a binary release when it's pure Python ? I wish I knew. But people do - mostly egg format files. But I think this is partly because of the confusion between egg-as-distribution-format vs egg-as-directly-usable-object that PJE alludes to in his emails. I sometimes create platform-independent eggs to indicate a Python-version dependency. Until d2/p, there was no other way to indicate dependence on a particular Python version. Except for Trove classifiers, of course: 'Programming Language :: Python', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.5', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.6', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.1', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.2', Or do I misunderstand your requirements? Marius Gedminas -- No proper program contains an indication which as an operator-applied occurrence identifies an operator-defining occurrence which as an indication-applied occurrence identifies an indication-defining occurrence different from the one identified by the given indication as an indication-applied occurrence. -- ALGOL 68 Report signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Marius Gedminas mar...@pov.lt wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote: Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the filename if it matters? isn't that supposed to be the source release ? Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand. Why would someone create a binary release when it's pure Python ? I wish I knew. But people do - mostly egg format files. But I think this is partly because of the confusion between egg-as-distribution-format vs egg-as-directly-usable-object that PJE alludes to in his emails. I sometimes create platform-independent eggs to indicate a Python-version dependency. Until d2/p, there was no other way to indicate dependence on a particular Python version. Except for Trove classifiers, of course: 'Programming Language :: Python', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.5', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.6', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.1', 'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.2', Or do I misunderstand your requirements? None of the tools use Trove classifiers to make decisions about what to download afaik. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
