On 26 July 2014 15:27, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I suspect that for Linux you mean “system-provided Python”? Looking at
> https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-341/ there is no python.org
> binary installer for Linux. Even if there was I would expect only a small
> number of people to us
> On 26 Jul 2014, at 00:08, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2014 05:56, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
> >
> > On July 25, 2014 at 3:50:30 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net) wrote:
> >> Will that guarantee the OS-provided Python was used? Or is there still a
> >> risk someone was using a cu
On 2014-07-24 11:57:24 -0400 (-0400), Donald Stufft wrote:
> This is gonna make openstack sad I think… They were relying on the
> fact that pip prior to 1.4 didn’t install Wheels, and pip 1.4+ has
> the pre-releases are excluded by default logic to publish
> pre-releases safely to PyPI.
[...]
FWIW
On 26 Jul 2014 05:56, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
>
> On July 25, 2014 at 3:50:30 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net)
wrote:
>> Will that guarantee the OS-provided Python was used? Or is there still a
risk someone was using a custom compiled Python on an Ubuntu 14.04 system
that is not binary comp
On July 25, 2014 at 3:50:30 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net) wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:44, Donald Stufft wrote:
On July 25, 2014 at 3:42:48 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net) wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:06, Donald Stufft wrote:
On July 25, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM, Richard Jones (
> On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:44, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On July 25, 2014 at 3:42:48 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net) wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:06, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>>
>>> On July 25, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com)
>>> wrote:
Linux wheels a
On July 25, 2014 at 3:42:48 PM, Wichert Akkerman (wich...@wiggy.net) wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:06, Donald Stufft wrote:
On July 25, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com) wrote:
Linux wheels are generally not compatible in a non-local sense, so it's
unlikely those will be
> On 25 Jul 2014, at 21:06, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On July 25, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Linux wheels are generally not compatible in a non-local sense, so it's
>> unlikely those will be distributable through PyPI. That would also mean it's
>> proba
On July 25, 2014 at 2:37:58 PM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com) wrote:
Linux wheels are generally not compatible in a non-local sense, so it's
unlikely those will be distributable through PyPI. That would also mean it's
probably unlikely they'll be built there.
Something related to this a
Linux wheels are generally not compatible in a non-local sense, so it's
unlikely those will be distributable through PyPI. That would also mean
it's probably unlikely they'll be built there.
Something related to this also cane up in discussion at europython but I
don't want to steal any thunder :-
On July 25, 2014 at 1:52:55 PM, John M. Anderson (son...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 11:10 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 08:46 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> >Yea, I’m not sure whether I like it or not. Probably once we get a for real
> >build farm for PyPI setup that
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 11:10 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 08:46 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> >Yea, I’m not sure whether I like it or not. Probably once we get a for real
> >build farm for PyPI setup that will be a pretty reasonable sized carrot for
> >people to upload sources.
>
On Jul 25, 2014, at 08:46 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>Yea, I’m not sure whether I like it or not. Probably once we get a for real
>build farm for PyPI setup that will be a pretty reasonable sized carrot for
>people to upload sources.
That's really the right long-term approach, IMO. I'd like to som
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On July 25, 2014 at 10:03:01 AM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
>> Here's a little something I cooked up based on the waf (a build
>> system) playground/package example. It's
On July 25, 2014 at 10:03:01 AM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Here's a little something I cooked up based on the waf (a build
> system) playground/package example. It's a build script for wheel
> (what else) that builds a .whl for
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Here's a little something I cooked up based on the waf (a build
> system) playground/package example. It's a build script for wheel
> (what else) that builds a .whl for wheel when you run "waf configure"
> and then "waf package" with waf 1.8.0
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On July 25, 2014 at 9:43:28 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On 25 July 2014 23:34, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On July 25, 2014 at 9:29:14 AM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com)
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 July 2014 15:21, Nick Co
On July 25, 2014 at 9:43:28 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 25 July 2014 23:34, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On July 25, 2014 at 9:29:14 AM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> On 25 July 2014 15:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 25 July 2014 23:13, Richard Jo
On 25 July 2014 23:34, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On July 25, 2014 at 9:29:14 AM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> On 25 July 2014 15:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 25 July 2014 23:13, Richard Jones wrote:
>> > A variation on the above two ideas is to just record the *link* to t
On July 25, 2014 at 9:29:14 AM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 25 July 2014 15:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 25 July 2014 23:13, Richard Jones wrote:
> A variation on the above two ideas is to just record the *link* to the
> externally-hosted file from PyPI, rather than that file's
On 25 July 2014 15:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 25 July 2014 23:13, Richard Jones wrote:
> > A variation on the above two ideas is to just record the *link* to the
> > externally-hosted file from PyPI, rather than that file's content. It is
> > more error-prone, but avoids issues of file ownersh
Maybe we should get on the namespaces bandwagon and allow
organizations to register a prefix. Then you would be able to know
that dependencies called "company/mysupersecretprogram" would never
accidentally exist on pypi
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 25 July 2014 23:13,
On 25 July 2014 23:13, Richard Jones wrote:
>> Yes, those are two solutions, another solution is for PyPI to allow
>> registering a namespace, like dstufft.* and companies simply name all their
>> packages that. This isn’t a unique problem to this PEP though. This problem
>> exists anytime a compa
[apologies for the terrible quoting, gmail's magic failed today]
On 24 July 2014 17:41, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On July 24, 2014 at 7:26:11 AM, Richard Jones (r1chardj0...@gmail.com)
wrote:
>
> > This PEP proposes a potentially confusing break for both users and
packagers. In particular, during th
On July 25, 2014 at 4:36:17 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014 17:46, "Chris Withers" wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2014 17:44, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>> Also, reject uploads that are not released under a DFSG license
>
>
> What's a DFSG license>
>
>> or lack
>> man pages.
>
>
> Ar
On 25 Jul 2014 17:46, "Chris Withers" wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2014 17:44, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>> Also, reject uploads that are not released under a DFSG license
>
>
> What's a DFSG license>
>
>> or lack
>> man pages.
>
>
> Are you serious?
I took it as a sarcastic comment cryptically expressing di
On 24/07/2014 17:44, Daniel Holth wrote:
Also, reject uploads that are not released under a DFSG license
What's a DFSG license>
or lack
man pages.
Are you serious?
Chris
On Jul 24, 2014 11:57 AM, "Donald Stufft" mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
On July 24, 2014 at 7:28:55 AM, Richa
27 matches
Mail list logo
