On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Philippe Ombredanne
wrote:
> All:
>
> I prepared a pull request https://github.com/buildout/buildout/pull/51
> to add support in Buildout 2 for conditional sections expressions.
If you're going to do something like this, it would be good to base it
on PEP 345/426
>
>
> Actually, given that the version scheme is a new field, why not duck
> the issue and just say that a missing version scheme implies
> "legacy"/"setuptools"? That'll be the de facto position anyway.
>
> Paul.
>
I'm partial to this idea.
i.e. if you want to specify that you're intending to be
>
>
> Version-Scheme (optional)
> :
>
> A string specifying the sorting method for this distribution's version
> numbers. Although straightforward version numbers tend to sort the same in
> each scheme, there is disagreement about how to sort patch releases and
> versions h
On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Vraj Mohan wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Vraj Mohan mailto:r.vrajmo...@gmail.com)>
> Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM
> Subject: pip and distutils
> To: python-l...@python.org (mailto:python-l...@python.org)
>
>
> I have crea
Minor editing changes, Version-Scheme added.
PEP: 426
Title: Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Daniel Holth
BDFL-Delegate: Nick Coghlan
Discussions-To: Distutils SIG
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vraj Mohan
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Subject: pip and distutils
To: python-l...@python.org
I have created a source distribution using distutils which specifies
external packages using:
setup(
...,
requires = ['Foo (>= 0.7)', 'Ba
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
>
> > (Warning - bikeshed discussion. I won't prolong the debate beyond this
> > one comment. I'm happy for Nick to simply pronounce on this). I'm not
> > sure I like having "setuptools" as a name mandated in a P
Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
> (Warning - bikeshed discussion. I won't prolong the debate beyond this
> one comment. I'm happy for Nick to simply pronounce on this). I'm not
> sure I like having "setuptools" as a name mandated in a PEP (just
> because it's a 3rd party package). Does the distutil
On 2013-01-29 14:08:33 +, Vraj Mohan said:
If I need to build a package that depends on other packages installed
in PyPI, what should I use?
setuptools provides this functionality with the install_requires
parameter e.g.:
setup(
name='my_package',
install_requires=[
'oth
On 29 January 2013 14:28, Daniel Holth wrote:
> The names will be "setuptools" and "pep386" referring to the sort method
> inside pkg_resources and the pep 386 method.
(Warning - bikeshed discussion. I won't prolong the debate beyond this
one comment. I'm happy for Nick to simply pronounce on thi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 29 January 2013 12:29, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > The specific intent of adding Version-Scheme is to relax the version
> > numbering requirement from "you *must* use PEP 386 version numbering"
> > to "you *should* use PEP 386 version numbering
Hi,
I hope this is the right forum for this question. I asked a related
question in python-list but got no response.
I am new to building packages and am using Python 3.2.3.
If I need to build a package that depends on other packages installed
in PyPI, what should I use?
If I follow
http://pac
All:
I prepared a pull request https://github.com/buildout/buildout/pull/51
to add support in Buildout 2 for conditional sections expressions.
The gist of this is explained here:
Sections headers can contain an optional arbitrary Python expression.
When the expression evaluates to false the whol
On 29 January 2013 12:29, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The specific intent of adding Version-Scheme is to relax the version
> numbering requirement from "you *must* use PEP 386 version numbering"
> to "you *should* use PEP 386 version numbering for new projects, but
> if you're already using a different
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> I would add to the currently supported values "semantic"
> (http://semver.org/)
> as this scheme is widely used and is easy to support.
>
> Currently, distlib supports a number of
I never quite understood what 1.2beta ever meant in a typical life cycle in
first.
Source code *has* a natural sequential evolution nature (call it a commit time
stamp, a scm version number etc.): even branches can be seen sequential walk
along a "timeline".
For that reason I don't think enfor
Daniel Holth gmail.com> writes:
> It hurts to have multiple version schemes in concurrent use.
Agreed, but I don't see how you can avoid it; even if all projects switch over
to a single scheme in the future, you still have the problem of past versions.
You can be sure, too, that for many project
17 matches
Mail list logo
