Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > > perhaps so -- but it will be a good while! The endorsement of the "official" > community really does keep pip going. And, of course, it works great for a > lot of use-cases. Right, there is some overlap in terms of

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > Hey Matthew, > >> > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda >> > supports, or at least a perception that there is. >> >> I don't know whether there is animosity, but there is certainly >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hey Matthew, > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda > > supports, or at least a perception that there is. > > I don't know whether there is animosity, but there is certainly > tension. Speaking personally, I care a lot about having the option to > prefer pip.

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: [snip] > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda > supports, or at least a perception that there is. I’d just like to say that > this isn’t really shared (to my knowledge) by the development

[Distutils] I abandon my idea, Was: Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Am 02.11.2016 um 17:57 schrieb Donald Stufft: > >> On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Coghlan > > wrote: >> >>> >>> hmm -- I don't think that's the code-writers job -- it's the deployers job. >>> Other than choosing which python *version* I want to

[Distutils] Released: pip v9.0.0

I’d like to announce the release of pip v9.0. This release features: * The 9.x series will be the last pip versions to support Python 2.6. * Support for Requires-Python (will require additional support in setuptools/PyPI) to allow releasing sdists that will be ignored by specific versions of

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Nov 2, 2016 9:52 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > [...] > Aside from already needing a Python runtime, the inability to fully > specify the target environment isn't an inherent design limitation > though, the solution just looks different at a pip level: > > - you need a system

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Sure. Do whatever you want, I don’t think anyone here thinks you > absolutely must use pip. :) [1] > indeed -- and IIUC, part of the thrust of Nick's post was that different package managers serve different use-cases --

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > No, as the post was about the fundamental and irreconcilable > differences in capabilities, not the incidental ones that can be > solved if folks choose (or are paid) to put in the necessary design > and development time.

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > > or you may decide to ONLY support conda -- my use case is a big pile of > tangled dependencies (yes, lots o' scientific stuff) that is fairly easy to > manage in conda and freekin' nightmare without it. Sure. Do

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > > I also mean 2.6 vs 2.7 vs 3.4 vs 3.5 vs 3.6, etc > Of course, but that has nothing to do with the package management system... > There are

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 01:54, Chris Barker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> > He mentioned that conda allows you to >> > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but >> > getting a python

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> >> hmm -- I don't think that's the code-writers job -- it's the deployers job. >> Other than choosing which python *version* I want to use, I can happily >> develop with system python and pip, and then deploy with

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > He mentioned that conda allows you to > > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but > > getting a python run-time as never been the hard part (maybe on Linux if > you > > want a different

Re: [Distutils] Travis-CI is not open source. Was: Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 23:13, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Thomas Güttler > wrote: >> I see an other hurdle. travis-ci is very widespread, but AFAIK it is not >> open source: >> >>https://travis-ci.com/plans >

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 03:05, Chris Barker wrote: >> Adding a new Python release or a new platform to the build >> configuration is currently an activity that requires per-project work >> when in theory a build service could just add it automatically based >> on when new

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 03:01, Chris Barker wrote: > Nick missed the key point about conda. He mentioned that conda allows you to > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but > getting a python run-time as never been the hard part (maybe on Linux

Re: [Distutils] Travis-CI is not open source. Was: Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > I see an other hurdle. travis-ci is very widespread, but AFAIK it is not open > source: > >https://travis-ci.com/plans It is open source: https://github.com/travis-ci Sadly, the infrastructure it takes

[Distutils] Travis-CI is not open source. Was: Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Am 01.11.2016 um 17:50 schrieb Matthew Brett: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Güttler > wrote: >> >> >> Am 01.11.2016 um 10:50 schrieb Nick Coghlan: >>> >>> On 1 November 2016 at 17:30, Thomas Güttler >>> wrote: