On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM, zooko wrote:
>> Why not? Aren't there setuptools plugins available for the common DVCSes?
>
>
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools_hg
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools_darcs
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools_bzr
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setu
On 3/23/07, Hanno Schlichting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 05:38 PM 2/15/2007 +, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> >> Not sure if anyone reported a similar issue here since I'm not subscribed,
> >> but
> >> here it goes.
> >>
> >> Some of the new plone.* eggs are be
On 3/18/07, Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/18/07, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've just added a small optional C extension to simplejson to speed up
> > decoding, but I have a feeling that it's going to cause problems
I've just added a small optional C extension to simplejson to speed up
decoding, but I have a feeling that it's going to cause problems for
Windows users.
Right now it's specified as setuptools Feature the same way that
PyProtocols' speedups module is implemented.
Is there something I can do in t
On 3/5/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:13 AM 3/5/2007 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >On 3/5/07, Christopher Fonnesbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have been using bdist_mpkg to build Mac distributions of Numpy,
> > Matplotlib
&g
On 3/5/07, Christopher Fonnesbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been using bdist_mpkg to build Mac distributions of Numpy, Matplotlib
> and other scientific programming packages. However, when I use bdist_mpkg to
> build matplotlib, the resulting package is broken. In particular, I get:
>
>
On 11/13/06, Jorge Vargas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/13/06, Eric S. Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this just got a bit out of topic
> > Jim Fulton wrote:
> > > zc.buildout's main improvement over
> > > make is the use of Python as it's scripting language.
> >
> > speaking as someone
On 11/8/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the easy_install docs is mentioned (at the end):
>
> Added subversion download support for svn: and svn+ URLs, as well as
> automatic recognition of HTTP subversion URLs
>
> How does this work? Is it possible to install a package from an
On 10/30/06, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > Feature. It can do multi-version installs, but only if explicitly
> > specified.
> >
> > The problem is that 1.2.1 is already on sys.path, so setupt
On 10/30/06, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just read an IBM Developerworks article on setuptools today, its
> linked at:
>
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-cppeak3.html?
> ca=dgr-lnxw07PythonEggWithSetuptools
>
> it refers to the ability to use pkg_resources.re
On 10/21/06, Joshua Boverhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4Suite is listed as one of my project's setuptools
> "install_requires", but when I attempt to install on Mac OSX-10.4.8
> using python-2.5 I get an error:
>
>
> """
> Reading http://www.python.org/pypi/4Suite-XML/1.0
> Best match: 4Suite-XM
On 10/16/06, Pierre Imbaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im a little bit disappointed by setupTools. Not that much the tool itself,
> than the learning curve.
> Maybe the problem at hand is far from simple, and thats what makes the
> solution so intricate.
> http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/s
On 10/3/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:40 PM 10/3/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >Wouldn't it be easier to just tell them to do "sh
> >./setuptools-0.6c4-py2.4.egg" instead of marking it executable first?
>
> I found the phrasin
On 10/3/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cygwin, Mac OS X, Linux, Other
> ==
>
> 1. Download the appropriate egg for your version of Python (e.g.
> ``setuptools-0.6c4-py2.4.egg``). Do NOT rename it.
>
> 2. Make it executable (e.g. ``chmod +x setupto
On 9/20/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:11 AM 9/20/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> >On 9/20/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>At 05:24 PM 9/20/2006 +0200, Philippe Normand wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> &
On 9/20/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:24 PM 9/20/2006 +0200, Philippe Normand wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >It seems that SVN 1.4 doesn't use XML anymore to store metadata
> >in .svn/entries (at least). So setuptools fails to find the repository
> >url for instance:
> >
> > File
> >
On 9/19/06, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Normally setuptools is installed system-wide. When you install an egg
> using easy_install, the egg itself can count on setuptools being
> available, and use for instance its resource management API and
> namespace package marking facility.
On Aug 4, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Leif Strand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the 'develop' command should bootstrap 'setuptools' itself --
> like 'install' does.
>
> I was Googling around for a possible work-around, but instead I only
> found others who ran into the same problem:
>
> http://www.djangopro
On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby writes:
>> I read the entire policy you linked to, and I don't actually see
>> many problems.
>>
>> It seems to me that the single largest problem in that policy is
>> that it
>> clearly predates the existence of the distutil
On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 11:20 AM 7/21/2006 -0700, Andrew Straw wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>> At 02:49 PM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's not a bad idea (update setup.cfg on sdist w/ --no-svn-
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:57 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:11 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:11 AM 7/18/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> At 04:29 PM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Phil
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 04:29 PM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>> If you can live with that limitation (explicitly setting one or
>>> both of those options when making a
On Jul 17, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:07 PM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 12:26 A
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> At 12:26 AM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why setuptools totally ignores extra_path when
>>> using compatibility mode
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> It seems that --no-svn-revision is only part of the solution to
>> making releases less of a hassle. The problem is that setup.cfg is
>> still included in sdist, so any
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 12:26 AM 7/17/2006 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> Is there any reason why setuptools totally ignores extra_path when
>> using compatibility mode (e.g. calling .run() manually or --single-
>> version-externally-managed)?
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:06 PM 7/15/2006 +0100, Robin Bryce wrote:
>> On 15/07/06, Robin Bryce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> egg_base=./ seemed to prevent the installation of console_scripts.
>>
>> Oh fiddle sticks. this is because './' is not equal to os.curdir
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> Last, but not least, the ability was added to turn off SVN revision
>> numbers
>> or dates from the command line, so that you don't have to edit
>
Is there any reason why setuptools totally ignores extra_path when
using compatibility mode (e.g. calling .run() manually or --single-
version-externally-managed)? It makes uninstallation much more
painful than it would've been otherwise.
-bob
___
On Jul 13, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Robin Bryce wrote:
>> What compelling argument?
>
> Ok, I should have said "I think there _may_ be a compelling argument.
> I'll have a go:
>
> In another thread, "best practices for creating eggs" Paul Moore said:
>
>> I work offline sufficiently often that not havin
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Robin Bryce wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [using setuptools 0.6b4]
>
> Is it possible to have a separate 'zip_safe' decision for data files
> versus python packages. Ie., a deployed egg with data files and non
> zip safe packages would appear in site-packages (or wherever) as bot
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Robin Bryce wrote:
> [using setuptools 0.6b4]
>
> I'm a setuptools user and greatly appreciative of it as well. I'd like
> to understand how to use it more appropriately with respect to
> bundling miscellaneous data files. "just put them in python packages"
> is real
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I have just released version 0.6b4 of setuptools, the last beta
> release of
> setuptools 0.6. Please upgrade and test at your earliest
> convenience, as I
> would like to issue a release candidate version next week.
Here's another patch
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> I have just released version 0.6b4 of setuptools, the last beta
>> release of
>> setuptools 0.6. Please upgrade and test at your earliest
>> convenien
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I have just released version 0.6b4 of setuptools, the last beta
> release of
> setuptools 0.6. Please upgrade and test at your earliest
> convenience, as I
> would like to issue a release candidate version next week.
It seems there's ano
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Last, but not least, the ability was added to turn off SVN revision
> numbers
> or dates from the command line, so that you don't have to edit
> setup.cfg in
> order to issue a release.
Would've been convenient if you said what the option
On Apr 12, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Matthew Bogosian wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:50 , Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Apr 12, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Matthew Bogosian wrote:
>>
>>> My apologies in advance if thi
On Apr 12, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Matthew Bogosian wrote:
> My apologies in advance if this has already been covered, but I am
> very confused by the interaction between py2app and setuptools.
They're more or less completely incompatible at this point. py2app
0.2.x has no idea what setuptools is,
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Trent Mick wrote:
> [Phillip J. Eby wrote]
>> I just checked in a fix for the issue with namespace packages in
>> system
>> package installation scenarios. This fix unfortunately puts some
>> significant limitations on what you can have in a namespace package
>> __
On Feb 23, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 10:04 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
>>> Apparently, distutils is good at allowing to do "something
>>> strange", but
>>>
On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 23:23 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>> Including "home"?
>>
>> Sure. Such values are infinitely valuable if a user has to convince
On Feb 22, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 20:27 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>
>>> Then what is the proper use of the "prefix", "exec-prefix" and
>>> &
On Feb 22, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 19:26 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> The problem is, it worked without that, so users will report it as
>>> a bug
>>> that they cannot install the new version. Besides, all git related
>&
On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello, Phillip!
>
> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 15:29 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> If I understand the issue correctly, the proper fix is to remove
>> the prefix
>> setting, and have users specify "--prefix=~" when installing.
>
> Thank you for yo
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Andrew Straw wrote:
> This way, setup.py can be setuptools-aware without doing 'import
> setuptools', but the user would have to do:
> python -c "import setuptools; execfile('setup.py')"
Maybe we should get an easy_setup that does this? easy_install is
fine if you
On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 2/5/2006 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> With the way that we're returning the distutils platform on the
>>> universal branch of Mac OS X, we need an
With the recent introduction of i386 architecture Macs, it's becoming
a necessity to support two architectures for the platform: PPC and
i386. Fortunately this is done somewhat easily using Apple's GCC 4
compiler and their linker toolchain. Ronald and I have already
basically made all of
On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
With the way that we're returning the distutils platform on the
universal branch of Mac OS X, we need another patch to
pkg_resources. The reason for this is that
distutils.util.get_platform() returns the platform that it is
tryi
With the way that we're returning the distutils platform on the
universal branch of Mac OS X, we need another patch to
pkg_resources. The reason for this is that
distutils.util.get_platform() returns the platform that it is trying
to produce binaries for, which is often not the exact curre
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:05 AM 2/5/2006 -0800, Jay Parlar wrote:
>> I'm having trouble doing an install of the newest Twisted from the
>> Cheeseshop, using easy_install. I took a quick look through the
>> archives of distutils-sig, and couldn't find anything. I'm
Modern Mac OS X applications need to support both the i386 and ppc
architectures in what's called a universal build (AKA fat in NeXT-
ese). Ronald Oussoren and I are very far along in making python24-
maint capable of doing this with patches all over the build procedure
and a few smaller pat
On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully setuptools can manage this better.
>>
>>
>> Probably not, as I'm not rewriting build_ext, just wrapping it.
>
> Is this wrapping transparent ? Or do you present your own command
> interfaces, for which the
On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Robert Kern wrote:
>
>>> Not really, no. In many cases (e.g., GNU ld), there's simply no
>>> way to tell the
>>> linker that you prefer static libraries to shared libraries when
>>> you are
>>> building a shared librar
On Jan 25, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Bob Ippolito:
>> Would setuptools notice the conflict between the roman module in both
>> eggs?
>>
> There is no conflict -- your module would be called "whatever.roman".
No, there is. Including roman w
On Jan 25, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:46 PM 1/25/2006 +0100, Maciek Starzyk wrote:
>> Is there a way to tell setup.py to do the equivalent of
>> easy_install -m
>> while upgrading its dependencies ?
>
> No, not really. You could always just bundle the "roman" module in
On Jan 25, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:48 AM 1/25/2006 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> Another simple fix is just to run easy_install docutils a second time
>> if you had it previously installed. Its setup.py script is stupid
>> and fragile.
>
>
On Jan 25, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:53 PM 1/25/2006 +0100, Maciek Starzyk wrote:
>> Then upgrade to docutils 0.4.
>> Note that setup says "roman" module is already there. It was
>> installed
>> as a part of docutils 0.3.9. At the moment when setup checks for
>> module rom
On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The new one is missing the docs, public, templates directories
>> which are
>> package data directories containing content. If these aren't
>> included on
>> purpose, where can I get more information on exactly what
>> include_package_d
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:33 AM, John M. Gabriele wrote:
> Can distutils (setup.py) uninstall packages as well?
>
> If not, is this a feature that's being worked on, or
> is there some reason why it may not be necessary?
distutils can't and nobody is working on it. setuptools probably
could, but
On Jan 16, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 01/16/2006 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jan 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Michael Twomey wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/01/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
On Jan 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Michael Twomey wrote:
> On 14/01/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder, though, if perhaps what's happening in the configuration
>> that
>> currently works, is that the path is being interpreted as "bundle
>> relative"
>> to the extension.
On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 12:59 PM 1/7/2006 +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
>> If you need .so that's built and exported by the same packaged
>> egg, you
>> may just consider installing it in a more benign area such as /usr/
>> local/lib.
>
> As I mentioned before, this
On Jan 6, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Stephen Langer wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue for the PyICU/PyLucene etc. use cases is that there are a
>>>
On Jan 6, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:11 PM 1/6/2006 +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
>> Unless you do something really magical, you're going to find a lot of
>> resistance to this in most Linux distro camps. Gentoo will want to
>> recompile via emerge. Fedora/CentOS will want to gra
On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> Hi folks. I just implemented preliminary shared library build
>> support for
>> setuptools, but I ran into a bit of a snag. I was operating under
>> the
>> assumption that you could simply put shared libraries in the
On Jan 4, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 4-jan-2006, at 22:26, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>>> Apple supports fat binaries on Mac OS X (they call them universal
>>> binaries), that is bi
On Jan 4, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Apple supports fat binaries on Mac OS X (they call them universal
> binaries), that is binaries that contain executable code for multiple
> architectures. In released version of the os this can be used to
> build binaries and libraries that sup
> Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
You might want to just include all your data and/or header files
inside your package directory; this is the one directory you can
always find at runtime, no matter how your package gets installed.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand. Are yo
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>> On 13-dec-2005, at 22:42, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>> On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:13 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd like to focus attention on these distribution format
On Dec 13, 2005, at 1:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:13 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>>>> I'd like to focus attention on these distribution formats
>>>>>> that distutils is missing:
>>>>>
On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:13 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 2005, at 3:34 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>>> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to focus attention on these distribution formats
bdist_mpkg:
>Mac OS X installer format
>Part of py2app by Bob Ippolito
>http://undefined.org/python/py2app.html#bdist-mpkg-documentation
bdist_mpkg is actually available on its own now, but I'm not sure
adding it to distutils is a great idea. The current version is
On Dec 11, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 11-dec-2005, at 22:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Author: bob
>> Date: Sun Dec 11 15:26:36 2005
>> New Revision: 1763
>>
>> Modified:
>>branches/pyobjc-setuptools/Lib/pyobjc.egg-info/PKG-INFO
>>branches/pyobjc-setuptools/Lib/pyobj
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> The issue at hand is how to structure the setup.py to support
>> creation of multiple eggs, with an egg for installation purposes that
>> depends on everything. PyObjC can be broken up into about
On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> At 01:37 PM 12/11/2005 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> I'm currently refactoring PyObjC and py2app to be setuptools-
>>> friendly, but one issue I
On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:37 PM 12/11/2005 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> I'm currently refactoring PyObjC and py2app to be setuptools-
>> friendly, but one issue I'm coming across is that PyObjC is a large
>> package, and normally
I'm currently refactoring PyObjC and py2app to be setuptools-
friendly, but one issue I'm coming across is that PyObjC is a large
package, and normally people wouldn't want to include all of it. The
way to do that would be to split it up into lots of eggs, so py2app
can include the subset o
I started refactoring py2app, modulegraph, etc. for setuptools and
eggs. After doing dependency resolution via modulegraph, py2app
needs to know which of those dependencies are in eggs and where those
eggs are so that it can just throw the egg (and its dependencies)
into the application bu
On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:43 PM, mike cantor wrote:
> I am extending python with C and trying to debug with printf. The
> code
> below succssfully returns the string "hello" when compiled and
> called, but
> the "can print from in here phrase" does not reach python stdout.
> Is there
> someth
On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Vincenzo Di Massa wrote:
> Alle 18:10, mercoledì 07 dicembre 2005, Ian Bicking ha scritto:
>> Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>> In the months that I've been subscribed to this list, I haven't
>>> really
>>> seen any *other* discussion that seems geared towards impro
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:27 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> Note by the way that "scan all these ZIP files" is a misleading
>> term in any
>> case - the files are not "scanned". They are opened, and a small
>> amount of
>> data is read from the end of the file. Nothing that
On Nov 18, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
> .
>> The extensions you build may not be compatible with previous
>> versions of OS X, and you may need to use GCC 3.3 to compile some
&g
On Nov 17, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
> Can some knowledgeable person tell me if there are any nasty things
> to watch out
> for when building extensions for the standard installed python for
> Mac OS 10.4
> (I believe that's the number corresponding to 'Tiger').
The extensions yo
On Oct 4, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Jimmy Retzlaff wrote:
> After I feel comfortable with things, I hope to work with other
> projects
> in the Python packaging community (e.g., cx_Freeze,
> PyInstaller/McMillan, py2app, setuptools, etc.) to see if we can't
> find
> synergies that will make all of th
On Oct 4, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Stephen Langer wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Stephen Langer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Is it possible to create libBase portably with distutil
On Oct 3, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Stephen Langer wrote:
>>> Is it possible to create libBase portably with distutils? It's
>>> possible to do it on Linux by subclassing build_ext.build_ext and
>>> explicitly using self.compiler.compile() and
>>> self.compiler.link_shared_lib() to build the shared li
On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>
> At 07:12 PM 9/20/2005 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> I hope that the packager-future will be largely setuptools based and
>> that the various platform-specific packagers will share a lot more
>&g
On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>
>> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
>> although it has interesting features (I would say).
>> The problem, apart from the work, is that it is good enough for me
>> - I
>> can do everyt
On Sep 1, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Trent Mick wrote:
> [Ian Bicking wrote]
>
>> Vaguely off-topic, but I figured someone here might know...
>>
>> Anyway, I want to provide backported stdlib modules to older
>> versions of
>> Python. Most of these are trivial to backport, so it's just a
>> matter of
On Aug 14, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Vincenzo Di Massa wrote:
> Hi,
> I have another question: how do I find what python version a module
> on pypi requires?
> If I try to install module graph in python2.3 it just say that
> @proprty is invalid synatx.
> How can I detect this?
I don't know if PyPI
On Jul 16, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>> At 09:22 PM 7/16/2005 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>>
>>>
At 09:01 PM 7/16/2005 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Ah, now that's service! It works fine for me. I would sugges
On Jul 16, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:01 PM 7/16/2005 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, I've checked in a preliminary version of --site-dirs
>>> support in the
>>> Python CVS HEAD of nondist/sandbox/setuptools; why don't you give
>>> that a
On Jul 16, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:03 PM 7/16/2005 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>
>> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> At 06:17 PM 7/16/2005 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>>
>>>
I've attached a patch to detect fragments.
>>>
>>> Would you mind doing it as a unidiff? I'm ha
On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:42 PM 7/12/2005 -1000, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 05:29 PM 7/12/2005 -1000, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 05:29 PM 7/12/2005 -1000, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> Well, just do the second suggestion then. "Install" the eggs
>> somewhere, unzipped, and make sure it's on sys.path during setup.py.
>> Maybe
On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The most expedient option would be to specify the eggs and a pth as
>> resources (or data_files) manually.
>>
>> Second to that, you could make s
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> I really want to use eggs, but I *have* to use py2app. Basically, the
> issues that I see are:
>
> 1) modulegraph needs to know about eggs so that it can track down the
> dependencies of things in the eggs
>
> 2) the eggs should either be put in
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
> I was trying to install setuptools, and I ended up running into a
> permissions error:
>
> % MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4 python ez_setup.py
> Downloading http://www.python.org/packages/source/s/setuptools/
> setuptools-0.5a11-py2.3.egg.zip
On Jul 3, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Most (90%+) of the libraries I work with don't depend on a Python
> version. But unfortunately when using easy_install/eggs they always
> have an explicit version, and multiple installations are necessary
> otherwise.
You shouldn't have a site-pa
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
