At 05:14 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>This is really good news, however. It appears to mean that slapping a
>>copy of my hacked 'site.py' (i.e., the one that honors .pth files along
>>PYTHONPATH) into the easy_install target directory would make
>>PYTHONPATH-ba
At 03:07 PM 2/9/2006 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>here's a quick bug report for ya. Happened with both Python 2.3 and
>2.4, using latest easy_install.
Please see
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2006-February/005960.html
Better yet, would you update the experiences
Hi all,
here's a quick bug report for ya. Happened with both Python 2.3 and
2.4, using latest easy_install.
% easy_install Twisted-2.1.0.tar.bz2
Processing Twisted-2.1.0.tar.bz2
Running Twisted-2.1.0/setup.py -q bdist_egg --dist-dir
/tmp/easy_install-5-YDh-/Twisted-2.1.0/egg-dist-tmp-9yveKV
Tra
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This is really good news, however. It appears to mean that slapping a copy
> of my hacked 'site.py' (i.e., the one that honors .pth files along
> PYTHONPATH) into the easy_install target directory would make
> PYTHONPATH-based installs essentially DWIMmish. To complete
At 05:04 PM 2/9/2006 -0500, Karl Pietrzak wrote:
>creating /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/setuptools-0.6a9-py2.4.egg
>Extracting setuptools-0.6a9-py2.4.egg to /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages
>Installing easy_install script to /usr/bin
>
>Installed /usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/setuptool
At 03:45 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>>I think we need a simple way to handle custom directories that is:
>>>
>>>- cross platform
>>>
>>>- doesn't require modifying the Python install
>>>
>>>- allows chained/multile custom directories, which means the trick
>>> of
Robert Kern wrote:
setuptools-based packages can be forced to install the old-fashioned way
using:
setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed
as long as you also specify a --root directory or a --record file. This
is of course not upgradeable or uninstall
Okay, so I've been thinking about all the recent complaints/requests
regarding the perils of PYTHONPATH, site-packages, --prefix, and all
that. And I'm thinking, is there some way I can work around all this stuff
so that installation is totally DWIMmish -- that is, that the install can
just "d
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>I think we need a simple way to handle custom directories that is:
>>
>>- cross platform
>>
>>- doesn't require modifying the Python install
>>
>>- allows chained/multile custom directories, which means the trick
>> of putting eggs and scripts in the same directory doesn't
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:10 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>>setuptools-based packages can be forced to install the old-fashioned way
>>>using:
>>>
>>>setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed
>>>
>>>as long as you also specify a --root direct
At 02:10 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 01:31 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Straw wrote:
> >>
> >> > Note that matplotlib tried essentially this for a while, but apparently
> >> > some folks really didn't like it. I'm not sure what exactl
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
[...]
> happen. EasyInstall will now *only* go online if a dependency can't be
> resolved locally, if -U or --upgrade is used, or if you provided suitable
> direct URLs via an argument or --find-links, or via a link in a local .html
> file.
Great, that an
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:31 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> Andrew Straw wrote:
>>
>> > Note that matplotlib tried essentially this for a while, but apparently
>> > some folks really didn't like it. I'm not sure what exactly broke on
>> > their systems (they didn't complain to the
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Andrew Straw wrote:
> This way, setup.py can be setuptools-aware without doing 'import
> setuptools', but the user would have to do:
> python -c "import setuptools; execfile('setup.py')"
Maybe we should get an easy_setup that does this? easy_install is
fine if you
At 01:31 PM 2/9/2006 -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>Andrew Straw wrote:
>
> > Note that matplotlib tried essentially this for a while, but apparently
> > some folks really didn't like it. I'm not sure what exactly broke on
> > their systems (they didn't complain to the mailing list), but when
> > setup
At 10:38 AM 2/9/2006 -0800, Andrew Straw wrote:
>Note that matplotlib tried essentially this for a while, but apparently
>some folks really didn't like it. I'm not sure what exactly broke on
>their systems (they didn't complain to the mailing list)
I wish more people would complain in useful ways;
Andrew Straw wrote:
> Note that matplotlib tried essentially this for a while, but apparently
> some folks really didn't like it. I'm not sure what exactly broke on
> their systems (they didn't complain to the mailing list), but when
> setup.py reverted to a plain distutils script, they cheered
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>At 11:10 AM 2/9/2006 -0500, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>
>
>>Could you do something like this:
>>
>>try:
>>from setuptools import setup
>>except ImportError:
>>from distutils.core import setup
>>
>>On your system, you'd then be able to build eggs at will. Other people
>>
At 08:02 AM 2/9/2006 -0800, Ben Bangert wrote:
>On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > If routes *needed* setuptools functionality, then fine - but explain
> > this prominently somewhere: "This package uses setuptools, which is
> > currently in alpha status - there may be issues instal
At 07:15 AM 2/9/2006 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>I recently started work on adding egg support to Chandler (
>>http://chandler.osafoundation.org/ ), and ran into some interesting
>>issues with respect to plugin discovery. Specifically, it's not easy to
>>do it well with th
At 11:55 AM 2/9/2006 +, Paul Moore wrote:
>explain this prominently somewhere: "This package uses setuptools, which
>is currently in alpha status - there may be issues installing or using
>the software. If you hit any problems, please report them to the
>distils-sg, and thank you for helping to
At 07:31 AM 2/9/2006 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>I really don't think the virtual python approach is viable, at a minimum
>because it doesn't work on windows. It is also unacceptably heavy IMO.
What do you mean by "heavy"?
>I think we need a simple way to handle custom directories that is:
>
>- c
At 11:10 AM 2/9/2006 -0500, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>On 2/9/06, Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's mainly because Routes is relied on by quite a few other
> > setuptools-enabled packages, so being able to easy install it was
> > necessary. I didn't have a non-setuptools build mainly becau
At 07:59 AM 2/9/2006 +, Michael Twomey wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Joe Gregorio has a fairly negative experience with easy_install here:
>http://bitworking.org/news/Please_stop_using_setuptools__at_least_exclusively__for_now
>
>I think his points boil roughly down to these:
>
>1. (not directly related t
On 2/9/06, Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's mainly because Routes is relied on by quite a few other
> setuptools-enabled packages, so being able to easy install it was
> necessary. I didn't have a non-setuptools build mainly because I
> couldn't see how to setup a setup.py file in such
Ben Bangert wrote:
> I didn't have a non-setuptools build mainly because I
> couldn't see how to setup a setup.py file in such a way that I could
> make both versions at once. I'm assuming I'd need two setup.py's and
> to swap them in the build depending on if it was a setuptools build
> or
On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> If routes *needed* setuptools functionality, then fine - but explain
> this prominently somewhere: "This package uses setuptools, which is
> currently in alpha status - there may be issues installing or using
> the software. If you hit any problems,
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:42 PM 2/8/2006 -0800, Ben Bangert wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering if there's any plans for a prefix option, which
>>functions like the common makefile prefix option for where the lib/
>>bin dir will then be, etc. My main reason for asking is this blog
>>entry regarding setup
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I recently started work on adding egg support to Chandler (
> http://chandler.osafoundation.org/ ), and ran into some interesting issues
> with respect to plugin discovery. Specifically, it's not easy to do it
> well with the APIs that pkg_resources currently offers. I
On 2/9/06, Michael Twomey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Joe Gregorio has a fairly negative experience with easy_install here:
> http://bitworking.org/news/Please_stop_using_setuptools__at_least_exclusively__for_now
>
> I think his points boil roughly down to these:
[...]
> 5. At this poi
Whoops, I just noticed previous messages on this, ignore me.
Michael
On 09/02/06, Michael Twomey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Joe Gregorio has a fairly negative experience with easy_install here:
> http://bitworking.org/news/Please_stop_using_setuptools__at_least_exclusively__for_now
Hi,
Joe Gregorio has a fairly negative experience with easy_install here:
http://bitworking.org/news/Please_stop_using_setuptools__at_least_exclusively__for_now
I think his points boil roughly down to these:
1. (not directly related to his first comment, but I think this might
be a source of
32 matches
Mail list logo
