Please look at https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyodbc the download url of the
said package got missing.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nilakhya Chatterjee nilakhya.chatter...@globallogic.com
Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM
Subject: Error getting pyodbc from pypi shared some log
To:
Hi!
I've seen people putting 'setuptools' in 'install_requires' in
setup.py starting with import from setuptools like this:
from setuptools import setup, find_packages
Does it make any sense?
In what circumstances should 'setuptools' be listed in
'install_requires' or 'setup_requires'?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Piotr Dobrogost
p...@google-groups-2014.dobrogost.net wrote:
Hi!
I've seen people putting 'setuptools' in 'install_requires' in
setup.py starting with import from setuptools like this:
from setuptools import setup, find_packages
Does it make any sense?
In
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Piotr Dobrogost
p...@google-groups-2014.dobrogost.net wrote:
Hi!
I've seen people putting 'setuptools' in 'install_requires' in
setup.py starting with import from setuptools like this:
from setuptools import setup, find_packages
Does it make any sense?
In
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Piotr Dobrogost
p...@google-groups-2014.dobrogost.net wrote:
Hi!
I've seen people putting 'setuptools' in 'install_requires' in
setup.py starting with import from setuptools like this:
with pip 1.5 able to install from wheel without setuptools, it's more
critical now to declare the dependency (in the cases PJ mentions), to
ensure setuptools gets installed.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:49 PM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Jim Fulton
On 27 February 2014 10:46, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com wrote:
that would be good. If you did, I would link to the tasks from the PUG
future page.
OK, these are the things I consider blockers for an accepted metadata 2.0 spec:
On 2 March 2014 15:22, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2014 10:46, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com wrote:
that would be good. If you did, I would link to the tasks from the PUG
future page.
OK, these are the things I consider blockers for an accepted metadata 2.0
spec:
I've just posted updated versions of PEP 426 and 459 that defer the
metadata hooks feature. The design and behaviour of that extension
is still way too speculative for me to approve in its current form,
but I also don't want to hold up the rest of the changes in metadata
2.0 while we thrash out
