PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Howdy all, Over at the ‘python-dev’ forum, PEP 453 is being discussed. This affects Debian packaging of Python, and packages written for Python. See the discussion thread and take the opportunity to represent Debian https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-September/128723.html> while th

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

We don't do "private copies" or "bundled copies" in Debian, so I guess the right way to go for Debian is to have python depend on python-pip and python3 depend on python3-pip? http://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:38:57 +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > We don't do "private copies" or "bundled copies" in Debian, so I guess > the right way to go for Debian is to have python depend on python-pip > and python3 depend on python3-pip? > We don't do dependency loops without a good reason eithe

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Am 18.09.2013 09:48, schrieb Julien Cristau: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 09:38:57 +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > >> We don't do "private copies" or "bundled copies" in Debian, so I guess >> the right way to go for Debian is to have python depend on python-pip >> and python3 depend on python3-pip? >> > We

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 17:16:22 Ben Finney wrote: > Howdy all, > > Over at the ‘python-dev’ forum, PEP 453 is being discussed. This affects > Debian packaging of Python, and packages written for Python. > > See the discussion thread and take the opportunity to represent Debian > https:/

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Quoting "Matthias Klose" : Also the platform package manager should be the preferred way to install packages, not pip, so even a Recommends is a bit strange. Yes, a "not-recommended" field would make sense here. As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, which finally would make pip

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

[W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18] > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~) > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ... +1 (unless all these "wheel re-inventors" will speed up a bit - they're still where Linux packagers were 5-10 years a

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22:19PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18] > > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, > > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~) > > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ... > > +1 (unless all these "wheel re-inventors

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22:19PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> [W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18] >> > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, >> > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~) >> > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ... >> >> +1 (un

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I object to the mandatory nature of the proposal and the associated be sure > to document for your users why you were idiots and didn't ship this. End > users should not need these kinds of tools. I agree. > I think that intro

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

[Paul Tagliamonte, 2013-09-18] > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22:19PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > [W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18] > > > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, > > > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~) > > > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ... > >

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > P.S. I'm not nominating myself to be the diplomat that talks to upstream for > what are probably obvious reasons. Too late, upstream folks (for eg Barry Warsaw) are on this list, are DDs and are part of the Debian Python community so you

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 18 September 2013 08:41, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > so instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to make something that > works everywhere they should make it easier for others to convert > whatever they provide (tarballs?) into .rpm, .deb or .exe. > >From a developer point of view: this leav

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Wise wrote: >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> P.S. I'm not nominating myself to be the diplomat that talks to >upstream for what are probably obvious reasons. > >Too late, upstream folks (for eg Barry Warsaw) are on this list, are >DDs and are part of the Debian

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We > package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can > develop with them. Are they 'borderline useless' because they are normally much older

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

W dniu śro, wrz 18, 2013 o 10:57 ,nadawca Tshepang Lekhonkhobe napisał: On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can develop w

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > ok, I forgot to add ";)", but... Sure, but let's be more careful - I don't want people quoting "Debian Python" people telling people they're going to purge pip from the archive... It's all too often I hear people complain about De

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57:30PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We > > package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can > > develop w

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

[Thomas Kluyver, 2013-09-18] > From a developer point of view: this leaves you dependent on other people > to get the latest release of your software to users, which can be very > frustrating. For instance, I'm a developer for IPython: we made a 1.0 > release over a month ago, and there's already b

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> ok, I forgot to add ";)", but... > >Sure, but let's be more careful - I don't want people quoting "Debian >Python" people telling people they're going to purge pip from the >archive... > >It's all too of

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57:30PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Paul Tagliamonte > wrote: >> > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for >developers. We >> > package modules so that apps can use them, not so t

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Am 19.09.2013 00:36, schrieb Scott Kitterman: > > > Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >>> ok, I forgot to add ";)", but... >> >> Sure, but let's be more careful - I don't want people quoting "Debian >> Python" people telling people they'r

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Hi Paul, > I don't understand the pip hate. Why don't you guys try and, you know, > figure out *why* these tools were invented. It (for sure) is overly > simplistic, but it's there for a reason. It's pretty obvious why these tools were invented -- I think everyone appreciates the difficulties of

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 18, 2013, at 09:36 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > 1) pip isn't for global package management, for this is stupid. If we > disabled root use of pip, I think we'd all be a bit happier. > > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We > package modules so that

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte writes: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22:19PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> [W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18] >> > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts, >> > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~) >> > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ... >> >> +1 (un

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

[Stuart Prescott, 2013-09-19] > > I don't understand the pip hate. Why don't you guys try and, you know, > > figure out *why* these tools were invented. It (for sure) is overly > > simplistic, but it's there for a reason. > > It's pretty obvious why these tools were invented -- I think everyone >

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:16:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: >> Howdy all, >> >> Over at the ‘python-dev’ forum, PEP 453 is being discussed. This >affects >> Debian packaging of Python, and packages written for Python. >> >> See the discussion thread and take the opport

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:16:22PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Howdy all, > > Over at the ‘python-dev’ forum, PEP 453 is being discussed. This affects > Debian packaging of Python, and packages written for Python. > > See the discussion thread and take the opportunity to represent Debian > https:/

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Hi, On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:45:24PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > It shows my background, but when I need older versions of things I > fire up a chroot and work in that. I often do that even for the > same distro release I'm running to keep things separated. It's quite > possible to deal wi

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Paul Tagliamonte writes: > Donald pung me after, and he's open to working with us. Thank you! It's important to have calm discussion with upstream, when we can make a positive difference to this specification. -- \ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a | `\

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 09/18/2013 11:41 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We >> package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can >> develop with them. > > nobody forces Python/Ruby/... developers to use libraries prepared by >

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 09/19/2013 12:55 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 18 September 2013 08:41, Piotr Ożarowski > wrote: > > so instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to make something that > works everywhere they should make it easier for others to convert > whatever they p

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

[Thomas Goirand, 2013-09-20] > Though my debpypi isn't good enough to be > released, I heard Piotr wrote the same kind of tool. > > Shouldn't we go the same way, and encourage our users to use a kind of > wrapper around pip, so that they really get a Debian package installed > instead of a "pip in

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Thomas Goirand, 2013-09-20] >> Though my debpypi isn't good enough to be >> released, I heard Piotr wrote the same kind of tool. >> >> Shouldn't we go the same way, and encourage our users to use a kind of >> wrapper around pip, so that th

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 20 September 2013 01:11, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > From a developer point of view: this leaves you dependent on other > > people to get the latest release of your software to users, which can be > > very frustrating. For instance, I'm a developer for IPython: we made a > > 1.0 release over a m

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:46:14AM -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > I try to get involved with Debian packaging. But, to be blunt, it is a slow, Debian works at a slower pace. We make sound technical decisions, over all. It's annoying to people who want results and want them now, but it's something

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Hi Paul. Keep in mind that despite my strong opinions I'm doing my best to be constructive with what I say below. W dniu pią, wrz 20, 2013 o 7:52 ,nadawca Paul Tagliamonte napisał: On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:46:14AM -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: I try to get involved with Debian packaging.

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 20 September 2013 10:52, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > If a library breaks API because the maintainer wanted another toy > rewrite, we're not going to upload it and break half the archive. That's > silly. > This condescending attitude towards developers ('another toy rewrite') doesn't help. Work

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:40:48AM -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > This condescending attitude towards developers ('another toy rewrite') doesn't I am a Python developer. Full time. For work. That uses pypi for almost everything. This happens a lot. Don't take this as me trashing on Python or Pyt

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 2013-09-20 at 10:46:14 -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > - Write a 'how to keep your distro packager happy' guide for developers. > E.g. many Python developers don't know that distros will move data files to > /usr/share, but when you do know, it's easy to write code so that the patch > to achieve

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 2013-09-20 13:52, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > It's not about keeping the libraries up to date, it's about keeping the > applications up to date. ... > Hell, we shouldn't even introduce a module unless it has an app using > it. I tend to disagree here (slightly). Too me, it is very important, that

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 20 September 2013 12:08, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Don't take this as me trashing on Python or Pythonistas. If you want to > talk > about this in person, I'm usually at PyCon. I'm also usually in the > packaging > BOF. Perhaps we can bring some of this up there this year? > Unfortunately, I d

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:44:05PM -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > That seems like an unlikely problem in real world cases - how often will > two people decide to package the same, currently unpackaged, piece of > software, within the couple of days or so before the first one publishes > their work.

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 20 September 2013 16:00, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Packaging often takes much longer than a couple of days, especially if the > packager is not experienced. And when the work is published somewhere, but > not yet uploaded, there is no general way to know if it's published and > where. > And

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Friday, September 20, 2013 15:44:05 Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 20 September 2013 12:08, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > Don't take this as me trashing on Python or Pythonistas. If you want to > > talk > > about this in person, I'm usually at PyCon. I'm also usually in the > > packaging > > BOF. Per

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

PLEASE everyone, I'm registered to the list, and adding me as Cc: is breaking my filters... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/523d1d76.60...@deb

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Le 21/09/13 01:17, Thomas Kluyver a écrit : > > And how many inexperienced packagers will start by filing an ITP bug? Or > indeed by searching for existing ITP bugs? More likely, the bug only > gets filed when they've prepared a working package and Lintian is > complaining about the lack of a line

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:17:25PM -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > > Packaging often takes much longer than a couple of days, especially if the > > packager is not experienced. And when the work is published somewhere, but > > not yet uploaded, there is no general way to know if it's published and >

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 07:02:59AM +0200, Antoine Musso wrote: > I find the ITP/wnpp annoying as well. I usually end up browsing > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ , opening all links then searching for > my package :-] I use Google for this. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital sig

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Antoine Musso writes: > I keep forgetting filling an ITP. It is usually caught on final review > because for some reason lintian is not being run by default by my > packaging chain :-( For ‘pbuilder’, you can add a hook that automatically runs Lintian on every package it builds. Other packaging

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

* Antoine Musso [130921 08:43]: > I find the ITP/wnpp annoying as well. I usually end up browsing > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ , opening all links then searching > for my package :-] I then bootup an instance and try to remember > to report the bug against the 'wnpp' package. FYI, you ca

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 08:50:46AM +0200, Etienne Millon wrote: > > I find the ITP/wnpp annoying as well. I usually end up browsing > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ , opening all links then searching > > for my package :-] I then bootup an instance and try to remember > > to report the bug a

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 04:36:23PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > I keep forgetting filling an ITP. It is usually caught on final review > > because for some reason lintian is not being run by default by my > > packaging chain :-( > For ‘pbuilder’, you can add a hook that automatically runs Lintian

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 04:36:23PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Instead, when you first create the package, edit ‘debian/changelog’ > > and make “Initial Debian package of ‘foo’ (Closes: bug#NN)” the > > very first bullet point in your first changelog entry. Then

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On 2013-09-20 at 15:44:05 -0700, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > Elena: > > there is an UpstreamGuide_ on the wiki: > > So promote it! I'm pretty sure I've never seen that URL before. that's exactly what I was doing :) there *is* a problem with the way debian documentation has naturally grown to a poin

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 18, 2013, at 06:33 PM, Paul Wise wrote: >Barry, I hope this thread has not annoyed you at all :) FTR it hasn't! I'm sorry I haven't responded previously, and thanks to paultag for engaging with upstream on the PEP. Work has been incredibly busy of late and I haven't had many cycles for a

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 18, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >P.S. Barry has the wisdom of the ages on his side ;-) You just couldn't resist, could you? :) -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 18, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >I understand your point and I'm not saying PyPI is something bad, >I just wish these tools use their own namespace and leave system files >alone. This is ultimately where I'd like to see upstream Python packaging going, and I've had discussion

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 21, 2013, at 07:02 AM, Antoine Musso wrote: >I find the ITP/wnpp annoying as well. I usually end up browsing >http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ , opening all links then searching for >my package :-] I then bootup an instance and try to remember to report >the bug against the 'wnpp' packag

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 21, 2013, at 04:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >For ‘pbuilder’, you can add a hook that automatically runs Lintian on >every package it builds. Other packaging tools will surely have a >similar feature. sbuild (what I use) runs lintian on the source package automatically AFAIK, but not on the re

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Stuart Prescott wrote: >PPS Virtualenvs are another commonly cited use case for pip, but virtualenvs >are mostly a short way of saying "we don't care about API stability" (your >own story of the incompatibilities of django versions is an illustration of >this); they'r

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

On Sep 18, 2013, at 07:59 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I also like the approach of we'll add features to python2.7 and call it 2.7 >still because we know there's no 2.8. Seems like not really getting the >point. FWIW, I just formally objected to this provision of the PEP in python-dev. -Barry

Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages

> It has that entry, yes, but without the bug report number that was being > discussed. The point is to immediately record the ITP bug report number > in that entry of the changelog. Normally you get an ACK email within a few minutes from opening the ITP. If you don't, probably there is something

Disabling pip for root? (was: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages)

On 2013-09-18 09:36, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > 1) pip isn't for global package management, for this is stupid. If we > disabled root use of pip, I think we'd all be a bit happier. Very quick and very dirty patch attached. > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developer

virtualenv --system-site-packages (was: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages)

Quoting "Barry Warsaw" : Sounds a lot like `virtualenv --system-site-packages` right? IMHO, --system-site-packages should be the default. IIRC, it was the default in squeeze (1.4.9), but is not anymore in wheezy (1.7.1.2). Opinions? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debi

Re: virtualenv --system-site-packages (was: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages)

On Sep 25, 2013, at 06:15 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >Quoting "Barry Warsaw" : >> Sounds a lot like `virtualenv --system-site-packages` right? > >IMHO, --system-site-packages should be the default. >IIRC, it was the default in squeeze (1.4.9), >but is not anymore in wheezy (1.7.1.2). Opinions?

Re: virtualenv --system-site-packages (was: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages)

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 25, 2013, at 06:15 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > >Quoting "Barry Warsaw" : > >> Sounds a lot like `virtualenv --system-site-packages` right? > > > >IMHO, --system-site-packages should be the default. > >IIRC, it was the defa

Re: virtualenv --system-site-packages (was: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages)

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 25, 2013, at 06:15 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > >Quoting "Barry Warsaw" : > >> Sounds a lot like `virtualenv --system-site-packages` right? > > > >IMHO, --system-site-packages should be the default. > >IIRC, it was the default in s