K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> Alex Grönholm wrote:
>> There is a lack of consensus regarding how exactly they should work.
>> If we are having this much trouble deciding how a third party tool
>> should work, it is certainly not going to be merged into distutils
>> until those issues have been resolve
P.J. Eby kirjoitti:
At 11:53 AM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And
*especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> The proper answer is : Setuptools is on the top of Distutils and has
> to evolve with it.
> And since it monkey patches it, it has to be changed when a Distutils
> release breaks it.
I want to note that the issue here is not monkey-patching, it is
subclassing the command class
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 13:54, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ronald Oussoren > wrote:
Nobody will adopt it until they are forced to. This unfortunate bug
means people are forced to quicker than expected. I don't think
that's
an actual problem.
This is a problem, it means 2.
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 16:37, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in
replacement for 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another
component as well. That can be a problem in organizations with
strict configuration management
On 5 Oct, 2009, at 16:25, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a
long time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're
mist
Bill Janssen kirjoitti:
Alex Grönholm wrote:
Does your bug still exist in Distribute? If so, please report it at
http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/ (assuming that bitbucket is
operational, which it currently isn't)
Sorry, Alex, I don't know about Distribute, don't (particularly)
Alex Grönholm wrote:
> Does your bug still exist in Distribute? If so, please report it at
> http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/ (assuming that bitbucket is
> operational, which it currently isn't)
Sorry, Alex, I don't know about Distribute, don't (particularly) care.
If you care, test for it
Andrew,
Have you already or are you planning on submitting 'python-stdeb'
packages to the debian and ubuntu repositories?
Regards,
Gerry
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Bill Janssen kirjoitti:
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
functionality is so-and-so's fault, not
2009/10/5 Jeremy Sanders :
> As a general question, is there any planned project to improve the state of
> distutils or replace it? It appears to be one of the weakest parts of the
> Python system and needs replacing with something much cleaner, better
> documented and more powerful.
Tarek's worki
I'm trying to bundle up a Python package with a C extension in it for
Python 2.6 on an OS X 10.6 system. I don't want to install it in the
normal /Library/Python/2.6/site-packages/ location.
But when I try "python setup.py bdist", it builds a tar file with the
prefix /Library/Python/2.6/site-pack
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
> the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
> upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
> functionality is so-and-so's fault, not ours." this reduces m
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 20:02 +0100, Mark Dickinson wrote:
[...]
> specified with 'package_data' or 'data_files'. The catch is that
> parts of the configuration file are generated at setup time: that is,
> the setup script gathers various pieces of system information (e.g.,
> library locations) a
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:21:28 -0700, P.J. Eby wrote:
And there's nothing all that special about setuptools' subclassing of
build_ext; in fact, if you look back in the archives here, other people
have done equivalent subclassing to support dynamic library building. I
haven't checked their c
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> I'm recent to python packaging and distribution, so let me see if I've put
> this together right from my reading of the various web pages involved over
> the weekend.
>
> Distutils is currently part of the standard python library. As such, it's
> released with pytho
At 11:29 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
That doesn't remove a package. It simply removes
I'm trying to use distutils for the first time to package up a
project, and struggling a bit; I wonder whether some kind soul could
point me in the right direction.
I'm packaging a pure Python project that uses ctypes. The only
complication is that I'd like the setup script to install a
configur
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>
>> If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tarek has changed
>> distutils in a way so the last setuptools release continues to work,
>> correct?
>
> Yes. And a very nice fix,
I'm struggling to articulate something here. When the maintainer of
the stable branch of a platform that I rely on says "The fact that
upgrading to our recent stable release will break this critical
functionality is so-and-so's fault, not ours." this reduces my
confidence in that maintaine
At 07:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tarek has
changed distutils in a way so the last setuptools release continues
to work, correct?
Yes. And a very nice fix, done quite quickly. Thank you Tarek.
So based on the curren
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
That doesn't remove a package. It simply removes the package from the
search path by one method in hope
At 06:53 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Possibly if you somehow
think it's the Distribute teams fault that a bugfix in Python ended up
breaking setuptools. If it would have been better not to fix that bug,
then the blame reasonably goes to the Python core developers, not the
Distribut
At 04:57 PM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
PJE seem
At 07:25 AM 10/5/2009 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
How do I delete a package using easy_install?
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#uninstalling-packages
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.o
At 11:53 AM 10/5/2009 +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major"... It's a bug fix tha
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> I've opened an issue of the main Python issue tracker outlining the
> problem, primarily for the benefit of affected users who search the
> tracker:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue7064
If I understand the comments on this ticket correctly, Tar
2009/10/5 Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn :
> I'm sorry to say that this event has already made me more hesitant to jump
> from setuptools to Distribute, just because some of the maintainers of
> Distribute have posted saying that they don't think this kind of thing is
> such a big deal. I prefer to use pack
Andrew,
I installed stdeb 0.3.2 from PyPi on my Hardy server and ran a couple
tests just to be sure. stdeb 0.3.2 on Hardy is working fine. I didn't
see any problems. 'bdist_deb' worked as expected and generated both a
.dsc and a .deb file for my project which installed perfectly.
Regards,
Ger
Alex Grönholm wrote:
There is a lack of consensus regarding how exactly they should work.
If we are having this much trouble deciding how a third party tool
should work, it is certainly not going to be merged into distutils
until those issues have been resolved. Distutils is what houses (or
sh
I'm sorry to follow-up to my own post, but I realized that I didn't
make something clear: the current Tahoe-LAFS source distribution
comes with its own copy of setuptools, so even if PJE releases a new
version of setuptools or if we patch that copy to work-around this
problem, we're going t
On Monday,2009-10-05, at 8:11 , Tarek Ziadé wrote:
So are you saying that in an environment where you are allowed to
install Python 2.6.3, you will not be allowed to install an
hypothetical setuptools-0.6c10 (or a Distribute 0.6.3) ?
Yes, situations like that can come up. For example, I gu
Jeremy Sanders kirjoitti:
K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
time configuration/build/packaging professional.
K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve
>> without help.
>>
> I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
> time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're mistaken if you
> think
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> Is that about right?
Nope. 0.6 is a fork of setuptools, providing bugfixes (and also 3.1
support). It's completely backwards compatible with setuptools.
0.7 is a development branch, which aims to refactor setuptools into
something or (rather several somethings) tha
Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
This would be a problem if distribute were in general release. It's not.
It's clearly a development branch which is intended to move quickly.
No, this is incorrect. The 0.6-branch is not intended to move quickly,
it is in bugfix mo
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:25 AM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Python packaging and distribution right now is not for beginners or
the faint of heart.
If we're honest with ourselves, it's not for experienced developers
either. Do you really even want to have to /think/ about this st
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
>> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
>> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
>> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
>
2009/10/5 K. Richard Pixley :
> This would be a problem if distribute were in general release. It's not.
> It's clearly a development branch which is intended to move quickly.
No, this is incorrect. The 0.6-branch is not intended to move quickly,
it is in bugfix mode.
It is moving quickly only b
2009/10/5 Barry Warsaw :
> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen asap.
PJE seems interested in this, as he asked about a patch, so ma
On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:25 AM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Python packaging and distribution right now is not for beginners or
the faint of heart.
If we're honest with ourselves, it's not for experienced developers
either. Do you really even want to have to /think/ about this stuff?
-Barry
On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if
it's possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with
Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen
asap. If that's not possible, then we mig
Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:41:06 -0700, Tarek Ziadé
wrote:
The other way would be to use Distribute instead of Setuptools for
what the packaging system is calling "setuptools". That's pretty
much what is happening in Gentoo (arch) and UHU-Linux (dev),
right now
Interest
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for 2.6.2
but requires the replacement of another component as well. That can be a
problem in organizations with strict configuration management where you cannot
install new software without going to
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
For beginners this issue is a showstopper that they cannot resolve without help.
I'm a relative beginner to distutils/setuptools/distribute, but a long
time configuration/build/packaging professional. You're mistaken if you
think that any of these technologies are sui
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> 2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
>>>
>>> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
>>> 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another component as well.
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in
replacement for 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another
component as well. That can be a problem in organizations with
strict configuration manag
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> On Monday,2009-10-05, at 7:38 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if it's
>> possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with Python 2.6.3
>> /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Jeff Rush wrote:
>
>> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
>> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
>> python-committers list of something this major.
>
> [...]
>
On Monday,2009-10-05, at 7:38 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
I apologize for my part in this, but moving forward I think that if
it's possible to patch and release a setuptools that works with
Python 2.6.3 /and/ earlier Python 2.6.x's, then that should happen
asap. If that's not possible, then we m
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Jeff Rush wrote:
Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And
*especially*
without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
python-committers list of something this major.
[...]
Considering that 2.6.3 is messed up in other ways, like displa
2009/10/5 Ronald Oussoren :
> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
> 2.6.2 but requires the replacement of another component as well. That can be
> a problem in organizations with strict configuration management where you
> cannot install new software withou
Even if it s true that it is on package mainteners to fix their code to run on
current underlying python version, there are many chances they won't.
Not to blame themselves, but:
- How many packages are/had been in bad shape towards setuptools right
now
(and i totally dont want to blame
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>Nobody will adopt it until they are forced to. This unfortunate bug
>>means people are forced to quicker than expected. I don't think that's
>>an actual problem.
>
> This is a problem, it means 2.6.3 is not a simple drop-in replacement for
In article <4ac9bef5.7080...@taupro.com>, Jeff Rush
wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
> >> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
> >> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that this comes i
On Monday, 05 October, 2009, at 11:53AM, "Lennart Regebro"
wrote:
>2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
>> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
>> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
>> python-committers list of something this major.
>
>Well "this major"
10/05/2009 02:01 PM, Tarek Ziadé:
I have planned to do it on my side once for debian package using a
recipe that was building the debian tree once the buildout was made, but this
work
was not finished. I can send you what I have if it can help you
Please, do.
--
Architecte Informatique
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina
wrote:
> 10/04/2009 11:23 PM, Tarek Ziadé:
>>
>> What package exactly ? I am not sure to understand
>
> Everything installable with buildout.
>
> Example: Plone. I want a debian Plone package.
> I configure buildout properly, run it with some
2009/10/5 Jeff Rush :
> Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened. And *especially*
> without any announcement on python.org or mention on the
> python-committers list of something this major.
Well "this major"... It's a bug fix that breaks a setuptools monkey-patch.
But yes, it was di
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Ned Deily :
>> This is not a good experience for users. Unless I'm missing something
>> (and I hope I am), this issue really can't be hand-waved away.
>
> It's unfortunate that this comes in a minor release.
Very unfortunate, as in, it should NOT have happened.
60 matches
Mail list logo
