On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Marcus Smith wrote:
>
>> What if pip did not depend on setuptools or distutils and the stdlib
>> did not include distutils or any other build system? Instead, the
>> installer can only install binary packages, and build systems do not
>> install but only build binar
As folks may be aware, I am moderating a panel called "Directions in
Packaging" on the Saturday afternoon at PyCon US.
Before that though, I am also organising what I am calling a
"Packaging & Distribution Mini-Summit" as an open space on the Friday
night (we have one of the larger open space room
> Not really (and I had missed this post as well). As I believe you've
> seen, I have some half developed thoughts along these lines at
>
> http://python-notes.boredomandlaziness.org/en/latest/pep_ideas/core_packaging_api.html
> ,
> but the whole concept is fairly nebulous.
>
>
your article is basi
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Donald Stufft
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM, a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote:
>>
>> Ideally it would be something that connects to the source revision number
>> (as in
>> subversion) or th
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM, a.cava...@cavallinux.eu wrote:
>
> Or until when somebody will explain if X.Y.devN comes before of after
> X.Y.N...
>
> Easy, before.
Which is explained in the PEP pretty clearly I thought. But if yo
Feel free to adopt whatever you think is the "best" practice: I don't understand
what's wrong with 1.1.99 instead the "magic" 1.2b2.
I followed these "lengthy discussions" .. if an agreement was found and was
technically sound why do you think people still arguing about that? And we're
talking yea
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> Feel free to adopt whatever you think is the "best" practice: I don't
> understand
> what's wrong with 1.1.99 instead the "magic" 1.2b2.
>
> I followed these "lengthy discussions" .. if an agreement was found and was
> technically sound why do you think p
Mine wasn't an objection: it was a plain refusal.
On Wed 06/02/13 18:00, "Daniel Holth" dho...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> Feel free to adopt whatever you think is the "best" practice: I dont
> understand
> whats wrong with 1.1.99 instead the "magic" 1.2b2.
>
>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:17 AM, wrote:
> Mine wasn't an objection: it was a plain refusal.
Your preferred lexicographically sorted scheme is completely compliant
with both PEP 386 and PEP 426. It merely expects users to write their
requirements as ">= 1.1, < 1.1.90" if they don't want to acciden
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The one *actual* change I will be making to the version scheme in the
> next draft is to allow Fedora/Firefox/Chrome style version numbering
> where there are only major releases, with no minor marker. Since the
> version scheme also
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I'm not against the change in particular though. The reference impl in
> distutils2
> protected against really high version numbers, I'm not sure what the logic
> behind
> that was except for protecting against "dates" as a version number. Mi
11 matches
Mail list logo
