> If you invoke 'use_setuptools("0.6c5")', you would get the same
> behavior with an unpatched ez_setup.py.
That's true, but the oldest version of setuptools that we support is
0.6a9, which comes with Ubuntu Dapper, but that one can't be
downloaded from pypi. Therefore there is no version n
At 02:30 PM 9/27/2007 -0400, Yannick Gingras wrote:
>"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Distribution would be best; I don't want setuptools invoking
> > executables on the off-chance that they're installed. It would add
> > overhead to every operation. To be considered for inclusi
At 01:29 PM 9/27/2007 -0600, zooko wrote:
> > In other words, we could maybe fix this for "setup.py install", but
> > not for easy_install. I'm not sure how useful that is, though,
> > since if you have setuptools installed, why download "foo", unpack
> > it, and "setup.py install", when you can j
At 12:56 PM 9/27/2007 -0600, zooko wrote:
>>>Thank you for setuptools! We are using it in the Allmydata-Tahoe
>>>project [1]. We've patched ez_setup.py so that installation can
>>>proceed if an older version of setuptools is already present, as long
>>>as that version is not too old. This allows
> In other words, we could maybe fix this for "setup.py install", but
> not for easy_install. I'm not sure how useful that is, though,
> since if you have setuptools installed, why download "foo", unpack
> it, and "setup.py install", when you can just "easy_install foo" in
> one go?
Oh, p
>> Thank you for setuptools! We are using it in the Allmydata-Tahoe
>> project [1]. We've patched ez_setup.py so that installation can
>> proceed if an older version of setuptools is already present, as long
>> as that version is not too old. This allows ez_setup.py to work
>> seamlessly in more
At 04:27 AM 9/26/2007 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
>We'd like to distribute ez_setup.py and virtual_python.py with a good
>number of our packages. I suspect ez_setup.py is licensed under the
>same dual ZPL/PSF license as is setuptools. I'm not sure how
>virtual_python.py is licensed (I got it fr
(Please direct emails like this to the distutils-sig in future.)
At 12:54 PM 9/27/2007 -0400, Yannick Gingras wrote:
>Hi,
> I coded a Git plugin for Setuptools. I posted to the distutils
>mailing list but my message doesn't seem to show up. A spam filter
>must have eaten it.
>
>The plugin is
At 07:18 AM 9/15/2007 -0400, Alexander Michael wrote:
>A related desire of mine is to have both the latest stable release of
>an egg and the latest development release installed with *the latest
>stable release being the default* (i.e. listed, with all its stable
>dependencies, in easy-install.pth)
At 11:33 PM 9/14/2007 -0700, zooko wrote:
>Folks:
>
>Thank you for setuptools! We are using it in the Allmydata-Tahoe
>project [1]. We've patched ez_setup.py so that installation can
>proceed if an older version of setuptools is already present, as long
>as that version is not too old. This allo
At 03:29 PM 9/18/2007 -0600, zooko wrote:
>Folks:
>
>We're gradually converting the allmydata.org tahoe project [1] and
>its spin-off packages to use setuptools. One problem that comes up
>is that ez_setup.py might require a newer version of setuptools than
>the version of setuptools already insta
At 08:30 AM 9/15/2007 +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>Hi,
>
>currently, lxml has both a stable release series (1.3.x) and an unstable alpha
>release series (2.0alphaX) on PyPI. When you "easy_install lxml", you get the
>2.0alpha version. I don't think that's what users expect and it's definitely
>not
At 05:09 PM 9/11/2007 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> % (source, command_name, option))
>distutils.errors.DistutilsOptionError: error in
>command line: command 'install_media' has no such
>option 'a rgs'
>
>Here's the setuptools.Command subclass:
>
>from setuptools import Command
>class i
At 08:33 PM 9/11/2007 +0300, Ignas Mikalajunas wrote:
> Hello, I would like to reuse pieces of code from
> http://peak.telecommunity.com/dist/virtual-python.py
As far as my contributions to that code, you may consider them public
domain. I suspect Ian would say the same.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> My first response, not based on actually looking at the proposal is that
> a simple 'or' condition would not be sufficient, as the package manager
> doesnt' know which clause in the condition to look at to find the
> preferred version. My second response upon pond
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:38:49PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I understand how the name "install_recommends" could be confusing
>> terminology
>
> Yes it is
>
>> given the way package managers use the term 'recommended
>> packages', which means extra that you coul
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:38 PM 9/26/2007 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> Note that the previous proposal for having a way to specify "or'ed"
> conditions would allow this, but it isn't going to happen until I get
> an 0.6 final out so I can focus on refactoring and new features in 0.7
On 26 Sep 2007, at 19:13 , Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I've checked in a fix for both the 0.7 trunk and the 0.6 branch;
> you can update with "easy_install setuptools==dev" or "easy_install
> setuptools==dev06".
Wow, that was quick. Thanks!
___
Distut
18 matches
Mail list logo
