On Saturday 03 March 2007 12:43:53 pm you wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) make our own distutils monkeypatch a la setuptools. Looking at
> > setuptools/dist.py, this doesn't look trivial -- certainly beyond my
> > free bandwidth capacity.
>
> This is fine by me -
On 2/23/07, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) make our own distutils monkeypatch a la setuptools. Looking at
> setuptools/dist.py, this doesn't look trivial -- certainly beyond my
> free bandwidth capacity.
This is fine by me -- I actually was forced to think about this this
morning as
On Feb 23, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Andrew Straw wrote:
>
> 2) make our own distutils monkeypatch a la setuptools. Looking at
> setuptools/dist.py, this doesn't look trivial -- certainly beyond my
> free bandwidth capacity.
I've written a script that attempts to simplify writing setup.py's
that include
On 2/24/07, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
> > IPython does something similar and possibly better.
> >
> >
> > http://ipython.scipy.org/svn/ipython/ipython/trunk/setupext/install_data_ext.py
> >
> From a quick look at the code, it's hard to determine whether this
Robert Kern wrote:
> Andrew Straw wrote:
>
>> 1) revert to the old way. The primary issues with this are a)
>> "package_data" is supported as standard Python from 2.4 on, and the old
>> way required carrying our own distutils command and b) we switched the
>> data directory to have a nested stru
Andrew Straw wrote:
> 2) make our own distutils monkeypatch a la setuptools. Looking at
> setuptools/dist.py, this doesn't look trivial -- certainly beyond my
> free bandwidth capacity.
Actually, it ought to be pretty trivial without setuptools (but compatible with
setuptools, AFAICT). Here is
Andrew,
I agree with your proposal; I think it makes more sense than either
alternative. Let's see what John says when he gets back from his vacation.
Eric
Andrew Straw wrote:
> (Picking up this thread a bit late... And I just wrote a longer email
> which got munched due to email configuratio
(Picking up this thread a bit late... And I just wrote a longer email
which got munched due to email configuration issues...)
I'm responsible for the "package_data" keyword being added to setup.py.
The bottom line is Python 2.3 is still supported. I simply didn't
realize that it would screw thi
Darren Dale wrote:
> We support setuptools, but we do not require it.
So, it sounds like setuptools is required now if one has Python 2.3. If
so, is that acceptable--is the gain worth the pain? Is there any
significant pain associated with requiring setuptools, at least for
people with Python
We support setuptools, but we do not require it.
On Friday 23 February 2007 5:46:58 am Edin Salkovic wrote:
> I'm learning a bit about setuptools and distutils, so sorry if this is
> a no brainer: Are we using only distutils for matplotlib? I.e. - no
> setuptools?
>
> This is because I stumbled
I'm learning a bit about setuptools and distutils, so sorry if this is
a no brainer: Are we using only distutils for matplotlib? I.e. - no
setuptools?
This is because I stumbled across this at the setuptools page:
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools
Feature Highlights:
Darren Dale wrote:
> I noticed today that setup.py is using package_data. Is this absolutely
> necessary? The most recent version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux includes
> python-2.3, which does not support package_data. We are still supporting
> python-2.3, aren't we?
Yes, I am sure that is the i
12 matches
Mail list logo
