On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 08:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Ethan Furman writes:
>>
>>> However, I feel that requiring a dependency simply for the
>>> installation of the main package (the main package doesn't actually
>>> use this install-dependency, correc
On 01/31/2015 04:11 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 1 February 2015 at 06:19, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>
>> Ah, so it's needed with the sdist command and not the install command?
>> Yeah, you definitely have my sympathies with
>> that one. Too bad there's no easy way to specify behavior based on the
>
On 1 February 2015 at 06:19, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 08:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Ethan Furman writes:
>>
>>> However, I feel that requiring a dependency simply for the
>>> installation of the main package (the main package doesn't actually
>>> use this install-dependency, correct?)
On 01/29/2015 08:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ethan Furman writes:
>
>> However, I feel that requiring a dependency simply for the
>> installation of the main package (the main package doesn't actually
>> use this install-dependency, correct?) is heavy-handed and should be
>> avoided.
>
> It is ide
Ethan Furman writes:
> However, I feel that requiring a dependency simply for the
> installation of the main package (the main package doesn't actually
> use this install-dependency, correct?) is heavy-handed and should be
> avoided.
It's lighter than that; the third-party dependency is needed o
Ben,
I appreciate the difficulty of trying to get sdists to work the way you want --
I'm in much the same boat myself.
However, I feel that requiring a dependency simply for the installation of the
main package (the main package doesn't
actually use this install-dependency, correct?) is heavy-h
On Jan 19, 2015, at 07:23 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>My understanding, based on an answer received elsewhere [0], is that
>omitting the file from ‘setup.py’ but adding it to ‘MANIFEST.in’ causes
>it to be included in the sdist but omitted from install targets.
I haven't read the whole thread (no time
On 01/19/2015 12:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 11:59, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Nick Coghlan writes:
> I actually misunderstood your question. If you're just after the
> ability to say "I want to include this file in the sdist, but not in
> the built wheel file or installed distri
On 01/19/2015 01:23 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
[snip]
> My understanding, based on an answer received elsewhere [0], is that
> omitting the file from ‘setup.py’ but adding it to ‘MANIFEST.in’ causes
> it to be included in the sdist but omitted from install targets.
>
> [0]
> http://stackoverflow.com/q
On 19 January 2015 at 18:23, Ben Finney wrote:
> Unfortunately this kind of problem (trouble post-install from a PyPI
> package) is difficult to test. How can I test the behaviour of ‘pip’ in
> this regard, without thrashing many releases of a package upload to
> PyPI?
A local devpi instance is g
> If you're just after the ability to say "I want to include this file in
the sdist, but not in the built wheel file or installed distribution" (as I
now believe you are)
I think that you can add the file to the MANIFEST.in file to achieve the
desired behavior.
-Robert
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11
Nick Coghlan writes:
> I actually misunderstood your question. If you're just after the
> ability to say "I want to include this file in the sdist, but not in
> the built wheel file or installed distribution" (as I now believe you
> are)
Correct, that's the goal here.
> then you're in the imple
On 19 January 2015 at 11:59, Ben Finney wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
>> If you have a build/install time only dependency that you want to
>> distribute, you *have* to separate it out into a separate component if
>> you don't want it to also be present at runtime.
>
> So, to be clear: if this m
On 19 January 2015 at 14:11, Ben Finney wrote:
> So should I expect that, if a module is not specified in the ‘packages’
> parameter nor the ‘py_modules’ parameter, it will not be installed?
It won't be installed, but I suspect it also won't end up in the sdist either.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Co
Ben Finney writes:
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
> > I’m pretty sure that find_packages is going to discover version.py
> > and add it as part of the return value which is then passing that to
> > the packages kwarg.
>
> That doesn't match the documentation for ‘find_packages’:
> […]
>
> The ‘versio
Donald Stufft writes:
> I’m pretty sure that find_packages is going to discover version.py and
> add it as part of the return value which is then passing that to the
> packages kwarg.
That doesn't match the documentation for ‘find_packages’:
find_packages() walks the target directory, filte
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
>> I’m confused what this actually is.
>
> Please look at the example I cited, ‘python-daemon’ version 2.0.3.
>
>> If it’s just a file you don’t want installed… then don’t specify it in
>> your setup.py’s setup() fu
Nick Coghlan writes:
> If you have a build/install time only dependency that you want to
> distribute, you *have* to separate it out into a separate component if
> you don't want it to also be present at runtime.
So, to be clear: if this module is needed during build-time for the
distribution bu
Donald Stufft writes:
> I’m confused what this actually is.
Please look at the example I cited, ‘python-daemon’ version 2.0.3.
> If it’s just a file you don’t want installed… then don’t specify it in
> your setup.py’s setup() function in either the py_modules or the
> packages keyword.
That do
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 8:01 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 19 January 2015 at 06:35, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Donald Stufft writes:
>>
On Jan 17, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
As it stands (‘python-daemon’ [0] version 2.0.3), the ‘version.py’ file
is correctly included in the
On 19 January 2015 at 06:35, Ben Finney wrote:
> Donald Stufft writes:
>
>> > On Jan 17, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > As it stands (‘python-daemon’ [0] version 2.0.3), the ‘version.py’ file
>> > is correctly included in the source distribution, correctly used by the
>> > ‘egg_info.wr
Donald Stufft writes:
> > On Jan 17, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As it stands (‘python-daemon’ [0] version 2.0.3), the ‘version.py’ file
> > is correctly included in the source distribution, correctly used by the
> > ‘egg_info.writers’ entry point; but then ends up incorrectly instal
> On Jan 17, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Howdy all,
>
> How can I specify to Distutils (Setuptools) that module ‘foo’ needs to
> be available for use by ‘setup.py’, but should not be installed with the
> binary distribution?
>
> In the ‘python-daemon’ distribution, I have refactore
Howdy all,
How can I specify to Distutils (Setuptools) that module ‘foo’ needs to
be available for use by ‘setup.py’, but should not be installed with the
binary distribution?
In the ‘python-daemon’ distribution, I have refactored a bunch of
functionality to a separate top-level module (‘version’
24 matches
Mail list logo
