On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Maintainer (optional)
>> -
>>
>> A string containing the maintainer's name at a minimum; additional
>> contact information may be provided.
>>
>> Note that this
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Makes sense. Even 1.2 has maintainer. It probably wouldn't be too intrusive
> to spit out a few more fields in distutils. I don't know about pypi which
> usually gets metadata as a dictionary.
This issue in PyPI's bug tracker suggests that Py
Makes sense. Even 1.2 has maintainer. It probably wouldn't be too intrusive
to spit out a few more fields in distutils. I don't know about pypi which
usually gets metadata as a dictionary.
On Feb 23, 2013 10:51 PM, "Chris Jerdonek" wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Maintainer (optional)
> -
>
> A string containing the maintainer's name at a minimum; additional
> contact information may be provided.
>
> Note that this field is intended for use when a project is being
> maintained by
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> There simply must be a way to spell "equals" that means "equals". It will be
> used when that so-called security release broke my application that
> integrates said library in a way that doesn't even expose the flaw.
>
> Plone depends on hundr
> Requirements specifiers have never been valid Python syntax; note the
> unquoted version strings. Environment markers are different
> and do not compare distribution versions.
Sorry, you're right - I was conflating the two.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 23/02/2013 18:28, PJ Eby ha scritto:
> [...]
>> The get_provider function returns two different distributions, when
>> passing a string or Requirement object.
>
> This is because a string passed to get_provider() is a *module* name,
> not a distrib
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Vinay Sajip
> wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Daniel is a fan of this syntax, but I think it is inferior to the
> >> implied approach, so don't expect it to survive to any accepted
> >>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 09:54:44AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Lele Gaifax wrote:
> > Jim Fulton writes:
> >
> >> The problem is that site-packages doesn't have a predictable
> >> location, as demonstrated by the example given in this thread. On
> >> some systems,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Manlio Perillo
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have find an inconstistency when using the pkg_resources module with
> namespace packages.
>
> I'm using setuptools 0.6c11-py2.5.egg
>
> Here is an interactive session:
>
import pkg_resources
dist = pkg_resources.Requirem
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Lele Gaifax wrote:
> Jim Fulton writes:
>
>> The problem is that site-packages doesn't have a predictable
>> location, as demonstrated by the example given in this thread. On
>> some systems, there are multiple directories containing custom
>> modules.
>
> Sorry
Ralf Schmitt writes:
>
> The following uses working_set.resolve to do that. I may miss some
> details here, but it looks like this can be done in a sane way...
well, it shuffles the list of paths quite a bit. given the fact that you
try to keep it in the same order it might not be that good or e
12 matches
Mail list logo
