At 11:24 PM 1/11/2010 +0100, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
Hi,
while toying with the entrypoint system, i repeatedly ran into the need
of having additional metadata prior to importing
In Plugins that only handle certain filetypes/extensions/mimetypes might
profit from the additional metadata (while
Ben Finney writes:
>> Eliminate : CheesyComestible-1.2.3.zip CheesyComestible-1.2.3.exe
>> CheesyComestible-1.2.3.tar.gz CheesyComestible-1.2.3.bz2
>>
>> Unneccessary and confusing.
>
> How are they unnecessary? There needs to be, at least, a difference
> between the source package and the binary p
"David Lyon" writes:
> Just "CheesyComestible-1.2.3.egg"
>
> Eliminate : CheesyComestible-1.2.3.zip CheesyComestible-1.2.3.exe
> CheesyComestible-1.2.3.tar.gz CheesyComestible-1.2.3.bz2
>
> Unneccessary and confusing.
How are they unnecessary? There needs to be, at least, a difference
between th
On Jan 11, 2010, at 8:01 PM, David Lyon wrote:
> When I run the same thing:
>
>> import platform
>> platform.machine()
>> 'x86'
Just as a data point, I get:
import platform
platform.machine()
'i386'
on a dual processor quad core Mac Pro.
S
___
Distu
Rafeal wrote:
> Windows (NT) used to run also on IA-32, MIPS and PowerPC processors too,
> and Windows (CE) also runs on other CPU FAMILIES other than i386 (ARM,
> MIPS, Hitachi SuperH).
>
> So, no, i386 is just a widely used name to call the subset of the x86
> family that runs on 32bit (vs. the
Martin,
> py> import platform
> py> platform.machine()
> 'i686'
>
> 'i686' maps very well to a real machine on the market, namely to the
> machine on which I'm typing this right now.
Ok.
When I run the same thing:
>import platform
>platform.machine()
>'x86'
So what is being proposed isn
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Do you mean, change the general name of these packaged up things from
> "distributions" to "eggs"?
What I mean is that the egg concept abstracts all the packaging
details from the user extremely well.
If a user gets told that all python p
Hi,
while toying with the entrypoint system, i repeatedly ran into the need
of having additional metadata prior to importing
In Plugins that only handle certain filetypes/extensions/mimetypes might
profit from the additional metadata (while also defering imports)
The same goes for my library any
> The question "what it it for?" needs a better answer than that. Who
> looks at this field? What do they do with the data that it contains?
> When creating a record, how do I know the correct value to put in this
> field? Can I just make up anything, like "Supported-Platform: my new
> laptop"?
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So, what is this field for?
See the PEP:
"Binary distributions containing a PKG-INFO file will use the
Supported-Platform field in their metadata to specify the OS and CPU for
which the binary distribution was compiled."
Seems very clear to me.
The question "
> So, what is this field for?
See the PEP:
"Binary distributions containing a PKG-INFO file will use the
Supported-Platform field in their metadata to specify the OS and CPU for
which the binary distribution was compiled."
Seems very clear to me.
> Can we give it a useful definition?
Useful f
On Thursday, 2010-01-07, at 20:43 , John Gabriele wrote:
So, here's a suggestion: just call both things (packages and
distributions) "packages", but then agree to fully qualify the
names when you need to avoid ambiguity, for example: "I just built
a distribution-package (or "dist-package" f
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM, John Gabriele wrote:
> Do you mean, change the general name of these packaged up things from
> "distributions" to "eggs"? So, we'd generically refer to, say,
> "CheesyComestible-1.2.3.tgz" as an egg?
>
> Interesting.
>
> What term would you use to refer specifical
Ned Deily wrote:
It states in PEP 345 that "the OS and CPU for which the binary
distribution was compiled" is described in the Supported-Platform field.
It also says that the semantic of that field are not specified by this
PEP. Presumably the value returned by distutils.get_platform() would
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2010, at 7:57 PM, David Lyon wrote:
>
>> As a regular developer, I'd call for a "L'Oeuf incredible". Excuse my bad
>> french. A new egg to replace all the bad old eggs.
>>
>> We need more simplicity in packaging in python..
>>
>> "e
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 15:27, John Gabriele wrote:
> Lennart, like you said, there's not much confusion for the majority of
> cases where the distribution-package (distribution) contains only one
> module-package.
Correct, there is not a problem in the majority of the cases, and
hence, which I s
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:33, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Lennart Regebro writes:
>>
>>> I said that it's not a big problem because in most cases the
>>> terminology mixup does not result in any practical confusion. And I
>>> stand by that.
>>
On Jan 10, 2010, at 7:57 PM, David Lyon wrote:
> As a regular developer, I'd call for a "L'Oeuf incredible". Excuse my bad
> french. A new egg to replace all the bad old eggs.
>
> We need more simplicity in packaging in python..
>
> "eggs" are cool. They're simple. They're what users want. They'
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:33, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lennart Regebro writes:
>
>> I said that it's not a big problem because in most cases the
>> terminology mixup does not result in any practical confusion. And I
>> stand by that.
>
> So we're back to a tautology: where the terminology doesn't cau
Lennart Regebro writes:
> I said that it's not a big problem because in most cases the
> terminology mixup does not result in any practical confusion. And I
> stand by that.
So we're back to a tautology: where the terminology doesn't cause
confusion, it doesn't cause confusion. True, but not ter
On 11/01/2010 6:13, David Lyon wrote:
My presumption as a long standing windows programmer is that somehow the
'i386' notation was somehow meant to be somehow related to windows. Since
in the past, windows users had intel processors and mac users had risc
(motorola) processors.
So 'i386' can
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 09:09, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lennart Regebro writes:
>
>> If you say "I need to install this package" it may technically be
>> unclear if you mean the package "foo.bar" or the distribution
>> "foo.bar-3.6.tgz", but that difference is not in that case
>> significant. Installi
Lennart Regebro writes:
> If you say "I need to install this package" it may technically be
> unclear if you mean the package "foo.bar" or the distribution
> "foo.bar-3.6.tgz", but that difference is not in that case
> significant. Installing the distribution and installing the package is
> in th
23 matches
Mail list logo
