Ben Finney writes:
> "Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows.
>
> AFAICT the MacOS platform also lacks in this area.
Actually, they both have them. Windows has Cygwin (rpm-based), while
for MacOS Fink (deb-based), MacP
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:05 PM 4/7/2008 -0400, Alexander Michael wrote:
>
> > a. I believe that having side-car files that sit alongside
> > packages because they have the same base name makes the database more
> > transparent to the uniniti
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 18:17 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
> I think I can sum up any further points by simply asking: "Should it
> be safe to assume I can distribute my application via eggs /
> easy_install just because it is written in Python?"
I think that based on this discussion the bottom li
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is indeed a problem -- but it's a social one, not a technical
> one. It's trivial for the publisher of an egg to change their
> command line from "setup.py bdist_egg upload" to "setup.py sdist
> bdist_egg upload",
Paul Moore wrote:
> And I would say that Windows doesn't have a problem. Are any Windows
> users proposing building a package management system for Windows
> (Python-specific or otherwise)? It's a genuine question - is this
> something that Windows users are after, or is it just Linux users
> tryin
Paul Moore wrote:
> I believe that Mac OS X goes for an even simpler structure -
> applications store *everything* in the one directory, so that
> install/uninstall is simply a directory copy/remove.
Yep, and thereby cuts the whole gordian knot, throws the
pieces on the fire and burns them. :-)
On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> http://allmydata.org/trac/setuptools/ticket/5 # binary eggs should
>> come with .py files by default, rather than .pyc files
>
> Filling your tracker with already-rejected proposals isn't likely
> to encourage me to look at it, especially whe
At 12:51 AM 4/10/2008 +0200, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:19PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I find this whole discussion hugely confusing, because a lot of people
> > are stating opinions about environments which it seems they don't use,
> > or know much about. I don't know
Hi,
This is the only obvious up-to-date address or mailing list I could find, so
feel free to direct me where I should go.
I'm a Linux user, and normally I have a 0027 umask. This means that when I
build a Python package using distutils, the files in the build directory are
not world-readable
Paul Moore wrote:
On 09/04/2008, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A reasonable way to deal with Windows would be to create a package
> manager for it that could be used by Python and anyone else who
wanted to use it. [...] This is
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Applying LSB and FHS to the innards of Python packages makes as much
sense as applying them to the contents of Java .jar files -- i.e.,
none. If it's unchanging data that's part of a program or library,
then it's a program or library, just like static data declared in a C
At 11:48 PM 4/9/2008 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
>On 09/04/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be, if .eggs were a packaging format, rather than a binary
> > distribution/runtime format.
> >
> > Remember "eggs are to Python as jars are to Java" -- a Java .jar
> > doesn't co
At 03:20 PM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>I've opened a ticket on my setuptools trac about this proposal:
>
>http://allmydata.org/trac/setuptools/ticket/5 # binary eggs should
>come with .py files by default, rather than .pyc files
Filling your tracker with already-rejected proposals isn't likely
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:52:08PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> And I would say that Windows doesn't have a problem. Are any Windows
> users proposing building a package management system for Windows
> (Python-specific or otherwise)? It's a genuine question - is this
> something that Windows users ar
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:19PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> I find this whole discussion hugely confusing, because a lot of people
> are stating opinions about environments which it seems they don't use,
> or know much about. I don't know how to avoid this, but it does make
> it highly unlikely t
On 09/04/2008, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A reasonable way to deal with Windows would be to create a package
> > manager for it that could be used by Python and anyone else who
> > wanted to use it. [...] This is primarily a Windows
On 09/04/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be, if .eggs were a packaging format, rather than a binary
> distribution/runtime format.
>
> Remember "eggs are to Python as jars are to Java" -- a Java .jar
> doesn't contain documentation either, unless it's needed at
> runt
"Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows.
AFAICT the MacOS platform also lacks in this area.
> A reasonable way to deal with Windows would be to create a package
> manager for it that could be used by Python and anyone else who
>
On 09/04/2008, Stanley A. Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you raise an interesting issue: What is a package manager?
My (very simplistic) answer is that it's whatever someone uses to
manage packages. What level of functionality it has is irrelevant, as
long as it suits an individual's
On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>> You are talking here about bdist_rpm and not about a tool that
>> would take
>> a Python package distributed as an egg file and convert the egg to
>> an rpm
>> or a deb. Unfortunately, some Python packagers are beginning to
>> limit
>>
On Apr 9, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>> By the way, if these tools work well, they are priceless!
>
> I haven't had need to use any of them, so I don't really know.
They are easydeb [1] and stddeb [2]. The former appears to be
incomplete and unmaintained. The latter appears to
At 09:42 PM 4/9/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:57:13PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 10:30 AM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
> > >where I would prefer either:
> > >a. Doing away with database files entirely and relying on the
> > >filesystem alone to hold
At 04:43 PM 4/9/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>I don't understand what you mean by "shared environments and development
> environments".
I mean that in a shared or development environment, a system packager
isn't useful, since it expects things to live in *one* place, and
usually to have
On Wed, April 9, 2008 4:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:21:09 +0100
> From: Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Distutils] how to easily consume just the parts of eggs
> thatare good for you
> To: distutils-sig@python.org
>
> On
On Wed, April 9, 2008 3:40 pm, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:52 AM 4/9/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>>However, are you implying that the installation information for Python
>> egg
>>packages accesses and coordinates with the rpm database?
>
> Yes, when the information isn't stripped out. Tr
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:57:13PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:30 AM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
> >where I would prefer either:
> >a. Doing away with database files entirely and relying on the
> >filesystem alone to hold that information, or
>
> ...which is what PEP 262 *does*.
>
At 09:04 PM 4/9/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 10:49:24PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 02:18 AM 4/6/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 07:50:19PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> >> > At 10:07 PM 4/5/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wr
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:26:31PM -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
> I don't know what Windows add/remove
> programs function does, but all it might do is to run the executable to
> install packages and record the installation (as was previously done by
> third party programs) to facilitate clean re
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 10:49:24PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:18 AM 4/6/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 07:50:19PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> > At 10:07 PM 4/5/2008 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>> > (One comment, though: I really don't like the idea
On Wed, April 9, 2008 3:19 pm, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:26:31PM -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>> The rpm and deb package managers (and their yum and other higher level
>> dependency managers) do a lot of things:
>
>> 1. They install packages and maintain databases of wh
At 10:30 AM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>PEP 262 sounds like a non-starter to me because
>
>1. It appears to be backwards-incompatible with setuptools/
>easy_install/eggs, thus losing all the recently gained cooperation
>that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and
No. It provides a forward
At 11:52 AM 4/9/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>However, are you implying that the installation information for Python egg
>packages accesses and coordinates with the rpm database?
Yes, when the information isn't stripped out. Try a more recent Fedora.
>IMHO, the main system without a pack
All my development is done on Linux. I use Windows very minimally (such
as for tax preparation) and unless forced to do so for specific
circumstances (such as submittal to grants.gov) do not expose Windows to
the Internet.
In the future there may possibly arise a need for us to port some
Linux-de
On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> I'm curious. Have any of you actually read PEP 262 in any detail?
I read it, though not in fine detail.
I didn't write that you are planning to reinvent apt. I wrote that
when programmers hear about this PEP they exclaim "They are planning
On 09/04/2008, Stanley A. Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows. A reasonable
> way to deal with Windows would be to create a package manager for it that
> could be used by Python and anyone else who wanted to use it. The package
> manage
On Wed, April 9, 2008 12:41 am, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:49 PM 4/8/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>>On Tue, April 8, 2008 9:37 pm, Ben Finney
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:37:07 +1000
>> > From: Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Subject: Re: [Distutils] ho
At 10:00 AM 4/9/2008 +0200, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41:32AM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > >The way to achieve a database for Python would be to provide tools for
> > >conversion of eggs to rpms and debs,
>
> > Such tools already exist, although the conversion takes plac
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41:32AM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> >The way to achieve a database for Python would be to provide tools for
> >conversion of eggs to rpms and debs,
> Such tools already exist, although the conversion takes place from
> source distributions rather than egg distributio
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:37:07AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am skeptical that prorgammers are going to be willing to use a new
> > database format. They already have a database -- their filesystem --
> > and they already have the tools to control it -- mv,
39 matches
Mail list logo
