On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> I wonder why they don't just use the sitewide distutils.cfg file, which
> would let them configure user-installed packages to go to somewhere else,
> e.g.:
>
> [install]
> prefix = /usr/local
>
> (And of course the build tools could specify differ
2009/2/25 P.J. Eby :
> At 10:03 PM 2/25/2009 +, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting to point out what seems to be planned for Debian:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/02/msg00431.html
>>
>> Quoting just the relevant part:
>>
>> """
>> Local installation path
>> -
At 10:03 PM 2/25/2009 +, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
It's interesting to point out what seems to be planned for Debian:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/02/msg00431.html
Quoting just the relevant part:
"""
Local installation path
---
When installing Python modules
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:48:13AM -0800, Andrew Straw wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> > What about another interoperability hook for system packages: specify a
> > file that a (system) package manager can include into the egg-info
> > directory (or egg-file) to tell setuptools/pip that this egg
At 09:16 AM 2/25/2009 +0100, Joachim König wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
ok so far, from the whole dicussion it seems that everyone agrees that
the Python version is superfluous
in the .egg-info files, so I'll update the PEP for this point.
I'll also start to write more details about uninstallation
2009/2/25 Joachim König :
> Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>
>> ok so far, from the whole dicussion it seems that everyone agrees that
>> the Python version is superfluous
>> in the .egg-info files, so I'll update the PEP for this point.
>>
>> I'll also start to write more details about uninstallation
>>
>
>
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
ok so far, from the whole dicussion it seems that everyone agrees that
the Python version is superfluous
in the .egg-info files, so I'll update the PEP for this point.
I'll also start to write more details about uninstallation
As P.J.Eby pointed out the importance of PEP 26
At 02:57 PM 2/24/2009 -0500, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 04:45 PM 2/24/2009 +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
What about another interoperability hook for system packages: specify
a file that a (system) package manager can include into the egg-info
directory (or egg-file) to tell setuptools/pip that this egg
2009/2/24 P.J. Eby :
> At 09:39 AM 2/24/2009 +0100, Joachim König wrote:
>>
>> could the egg-info directory be put somewhere else (as a
>> configuration/command line option)?
>
> No, since it's used to identify the installed location of the code that goes
> with it, ala PEP 262. In other words,
At 06:21 PM 2/24/2009 +, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:53:17PM -0500, P.J. Eby wrote:
> So, the uninstallation code should simply not remove file(s) that are
> referenced by more than one manifest in the target directory -- a
> relatively simple, future-proof safeguard,
At 04:45 PM 2/24/2009 +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
What about another interoperability hook for system packages: specify
a file that a (system) package manager can include into the egg-info
directory (or egg-file) to tell setuptools/pip that this egg is
managed by the system and hence shouldn't
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb, 2009, at 16:20, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. Having an index file would make things a whole lot simpler.
>>
>> For *whom*? Certainly not for system packaging tools (rpm, deb, et al).
>>
>> A design goal should be to allow system packaging tools to install a
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 04:39:24PM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb, 2009, at 13:33, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2009/2/24 Joachim König :
>>> An other option could be to put the egg-info dir into the package
>>> itself, e.g.
>>>
>>> zlib/
>>> __init__.py
>>> egg-info/
>>> PK
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:53:17PM -0500, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 01:50 AM 2/24/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> PEP, because as far as I
>> can see, the namespace package boilerplate in setuptools is using
>> pkgutil.extend_path which
>> fixes __path__ variables on the fly. So I can't think of a cas
On 24 Feb, 2009, at 16:20, P.J. Eby wrote:
Indeed. Having an index file would make things a whole lot simpler.
For *whom*? Certainly not for system packaging tools (rpm, deb, et
al).
A design goal should be to allow system packaging tools to install a
static file footprint: i.e., inde
On 24 Feb, 2009, at 13:33, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/2/24 Joachim König :
An other option could be to put the egg-info dir into the package
itself, e.g.
zlib/
__init__.py
egg-info/
PKG-INFO
MANIFEST
RECORD
...
This would require setuptools and pip to change the way t
P.J. Eby schrieb:
At 09:39 AM 2/24/2009 +0100, Joachim König wrote:
could the egg-info directory be put somewhere else (as a
configuration/command line option)?
No, since it's used to identify the installed location of the code
that goes with it, ala PEP 262. In other words, sys.path is its
At 01:33 PM 2/24/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Philip wrote:
> So, the uninstallation code should simply not remove file(s) that
are referenced by more than one manifest in the target directory --
a relatively simple, future-proof safeguard, that doesn't require
any specific knowledge of "nam
At 09:39 AM 2/24/2009 +0100, Joachim König wrote:
could the egg-info directory be put somewhere else (as a
configuration/command line option)?
No, since it's used to identify the installed location of the code
that goes with it, ala PEP 262. In other words, sys.path is its own
installation d
Philip wrote:
> When a distutils package does it. I'm not positive, but if 'pip' supports
> namespace packages without using .pth files, then it has to use a shared
> __init__ also.
>
> And in the long run, easy_install will do this too.
>
> So, the uninstallation code should simply not remove f
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
If you look at install_egg_info, it will add the Python version
http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk/Lib/distutils/command/install_egg_info.py
I am not sure either this should be kept. I don't see the rationale
either, since
sys.version is known at runtime, it seems su
At 01:50 AM 2/24/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I having the same problem with the version : since it is already
located in PKG-INFO,
there's no need to have it in the folder name;
It's there so pkg_resources doesn't need to read the file in order to
locate an available version of the package,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
wrote:
> Hello Tarek
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:37:50AM +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> I have started a PEP for Distutils, I would like to work out for Pycon.
>>
>> http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/pep-0376.txt
>
> Looks quite nice so
Hello Tarek
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:37:50AM +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> I have started a PEP for Distutils, I would like to work out for Pycon.
>
> http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/pep-0376.txt
Looks quite nice so far IMHO. Here some early feedback...
"""
Back to our `zlib` exampl
Hello,
I have started a PEP for Distutils, I would like to work out for Pycon.
http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/pep-0376.txt
It proposes some changes on the egg-info format, and various other enhancements,
It's an early draft and any help/feedback is welcome !
Regards
Tarek
--
Tarek
25 matches
Mail list logo
