On Dec 01, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Freddy Rietdijk wrote:
>Having a compatible set of packages is not only interesting for developers,
>but also for downstream distributions. All distributions try to find a set
>of packages that are working together and release them. This is a lot of
>work, and I think
On Thursday, December 1, 2016, Freddy Rietdijk
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose that, as a community, we jointly maintain a
> curated set of Python packages that are known to work together. These
> packages would receive security updates for some time and every couple of
> months a new ma
On Thursday, December 8, 2016, Wes Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, December 1, 2016, Freddy Rietdijk > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose that, as a community, we jointly maintain a
>> curated set of Python packages that are known to work together. These
>> packages would receive sec
On 2016-12-08 10:05:47 -0600 (-0600), Wes Turner wrote:
[...]
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/
>
> - pbr does away with setup.py and install_requires in favor of just
> requirements.txt
[...]
It doesn't entirely "do away with setup.py" (it still relies on a
relatively minimal boilerplat
Putting the conclusion first, I do see value in better publicising
"Recommended libraries" based on some automated criteria like:
- recommended in the standard library documentation
- available via 1 or more cross-platform commercial Python redistributors
- available via 1 or more Linux distro ven
Jeremy Stanley writes:
> [the ‘pbr’ library] does allow you to basically abstract away most
> common configuration into declarative setup.cfg and requirements.txt
> files
Hmm. That description sounds like a mistaken conflation of two things
that should be distinct:
* Declaration in Setuptools m
On 9 Dec 2016 4:42 PM, "Ben Finney" wrote:
Jeremy Stanley writes:
> [the ‘pbr’ library] does allow you to basically abstract away most
> common configuration into declarative setup.cfg and requirements.txt
> files
Hmm. That description sounds like a mistaken conflation of two things
that shoul
> On Dec 8, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> For those who haven't read it, see this post from Donald Stufft for why
> those purposes need to be kept distinct
Somewhat funnily, pbr is what triggered me to actually write that post :)
If I recall, at the time it only supported requiremen
On 9 Dec 2016 5:45 PM, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
On Dec 8, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
For those who haven't read it, see this post from Donald Stufft for why
those purposes need to be kept distinct
Somewhat funnily, pbr is what triggered me to actually write that post :)
If I recall,
On Thursday, December 8, 2016, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Putting the conclusion first, I do see value in better publicising
> "Recommended libraries" based on some automated criteria like:
>
> - recommended in the standard library documentation
> - available via 1 or more cross-platform commercial Py
On Thursday, December 8, 2016, Ben Finney > wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley writes:
>
> > [the ‘pbr’ library] does allow you to basically abstract away most
> > common configuration into declarative setup.cfg and requirements.txt
> > files
>
> Hmm. That description sounds like a mistaken conflation of tw
11 matches
Mail list logo
