On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/04/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be, if .eggs were a packaging format, rather than a binary
> > distribution/runtime format.
> >
> > Remember "eggs are to Python as jars are to Java" -
Ben Finney writes:
> "Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows.
>
> AFAICT the MacOS platform also lacks in this area.
Actually, they both have them. Windows has Cygwin (rpm-based), while
for MacOS Fink (deb-based), MacP
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is indeed a problem -- but it's a social one, not a technical
> one. It's trivial for the publisher of an egg to change their
> command line from "setup.py bdist_egg upload" to "setup.py sdist
> bdist_egg upload",
On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> http://allmydata.org/trac/setuptools/ticket/5 # binary eggs should
>> come with .py files by default, rather than .pyc files
>
> Filling your tracker with already-rejected proposals isn't likely
> to encourage me to look at it, especially whe
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Are you using Python 2.5? As of 2.5, the linecache module should
> correctly read the source line from the present location of the source
> file the module was loaded from, regardless of the file name specified
> in the traceback.
I think it was doing that, but I was tr
zooko wrote:
>
> We determined
> that if you install the egg (with easy_install or with a
> setuptools-powered ./setup.py install) in unzipped form then the source
> file names get rewritten so that your stack traces come with source lines.
That wouldn't have helped me with my problem, bec
At 12:51 AM 4/10/2008 +0200, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:19PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I find this whole discussion hugely confusing, because a lot of people
> > are stating opinions about environments which it seems they don't use,
> > or know much about. I don't know
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Applying LSB and FHS to the innards of Python packages makes as much
sense as applying them to the contents of Java .jar files -- i.e.,
none. If it's unchanging data that's part of a program or library,
then it's a program or library, just like static data declared in a C
At 11:48 PM 4/9/2008 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
>On 09/04/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be, if .eggs were a packaging format, rather than a binary
> > distribution/runtime format.
> >
> > Remember "eggs are to Python as jars are to Java" -- a Java .jar
> > doesn't co
At 03:20 PM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>I've opened a ticket on my setuptools trac about this proposal:
>
>http://allmydata.org/trac/setuptools/ticket/5 # binary eggs should
>come with .py files by default, rather than .pyc files
Filling your tracker with already-rejected proposals isn't likely
On 09/04/2008, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A reasonable way to deal with Windows would be to create a package
> > manager for it that could be used by Python and anyone else who
> > wanted to use it. [...] This is primarily a Windows
"Stanley A. Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows.
AFAICT the MacOS platform also lacks in this area.
> A reasonable way to deal with Windows would be to create a package
> manager for it that could be used by Python and anyone else who
>
On 09/04/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be, if .eggs were a packaging format, rather than a binary
> distribution/runtime format.
>
> Remember "eggs are to Python as jars are to Java" -- a Java .jar
> doesn't contain documentation either, unless it's needed at
> runt
On 09/04/2008, Stanley A. Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you raise an interesting issue: What is a package manager?
My (very simplistic) answer is that it's whatever someone uses to
manage packages. What level of functionality it has is irrelevant, as
long as it suits an individual's
On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>> You are talking here about bdist_rpm and not about a tool that
>> would take
>> a Python package distributed as an egg file and convert the egg to
>> an rpm
>> or a deb. Unfortunately, some Python packagers are beginning to
>> limit
>>
On Apr 9, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>
>> By the way, if these tools work well, they are priceless!
>
> I haven't had need to use any of them, so I don't really know.
They are easydeb [1] and stddeb [2]. The former appears to be
incomplete and unmaintained. The latter appears to
> Can anyone give me a hand on this? As far as I could
> investigate, I must change setup.py in order to get this issue fixed,
> right?
Wrong. I didn't read your entire message, but this is definitely wrong.
setup.py isn't invoked until python itself is built, and
Modules/python.c is part of pytho
At 04:43 PM 4/9/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>I don't understand what you mean by "shared environments and development
> environments".
I mean that in a shared or development environment, a system packager
isn't useful, since it expects things to live in *one* place, and
usually to have
> Are the Linux users happy with having a Python
> package manager that ignores RPM/apt? Why
> should Windows users be any happier?
Because, as you noted, the add/remove programs application is severely
limited.
> I've read one too many "Windows is so broken
> that people who use it obviously don
Hi everybody :-)
I'm running a PPC64 biarch here (i.e., a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit
userspace), and trying to compile Python on it. Well, as I have a GCC
compiler that generates natively 32-bit executables, everything goes
well when I *don't* use any specific 64-bit flag (./configure
--enable-shar
At 12:30 PM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >
> > I discovered another annoyance with eggs the other day -- it
> > seems that tracebacks referring to egg-resident files contain the
> > pathname of some temporary directory that existed when the egg
> >
At 10:30 AM 4/9/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>PEP 262 sounds like a non-starter to me because
>
>1. It appears to be backwards-incompatible with setuptools/
>easy_install/eggs, thus losing all the recently gained cooperation
>that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and
No. It provides a forward
At 11:52 AM 4/9/2008 -0400, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>However, are you implying that the installation information for Python egg
>packages accesses and coordinates with the rpm database?
Yes, when the information isn't stripped out. Try a more recent Fedora.
>IMHO, the main system without a pack
On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> I discovered another annoyance with eggs the other day -- it
> seems that tracebacks referring to egg-resident files contain the
> pathname of some temporary directory that existed when the egg
> was being packaged, rather than the one it actually
On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> I'm curious. Have any of you actually read PEP 262 in any detail?
I read it, though not in fine detail.
I didn't write that you are planning to reinvent apt. I wrote that
when programmers hear about this PEP they exclaim "They are planning
On 09/04/2008, Stanley A. Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows. A reasonable
> way to deal with Windows would be to create a package manager for it that
> could be used by Python and anyone else who wanted to use it. The package
> manage
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:37:07AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Moreover, many of us already have a database of *all* packages on the
> system, not just Python-language ones: the package database of our
> operating system. Adding another, parallel, database which needs
> separate maintenance, and
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > I think, however, that the docs should be revised now, for 2.6/3.0.
> > In the list of methods under TestCase Objects, the preferred method
> > of each
> > pair (or tripli
> Thanks for the prod, Trent. In short, yes, I spent some time
> on this over the weekend but haven't had time since. I found
> myself becoming more and more worried at the amount I had to
> change, especially given rumblings on the list concerning not
> changing the tests if possible.
> I was he
Hi,
Is there another online sprint/bugfix day in the pipeline? If not, can there
be? ;-)
Trent.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/o
Trent Nelson wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tim Golden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 04 April 2008 09:30
>> To: Trent Nelson
>> Cc: Python-Dev
>> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] fixing tests on windows
>
>> Yes. I'm trying desperately hard to stick to a narrow remit
>> of getting
At 10:00 AM 4/9/2008 +0200, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41:32AM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > >The way to achieve a database for Python would be to provide tools for
> > >conversion of eggs to rpms and debs,
>
> > Such tools already exist, although the conversion takes plac
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Golden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 April 2008 09:30
> To: Trent Nelson
> Cc: Python-Dev
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] fixing tests on windows
> Yes. I'm trying desperately hard to stick to a narrow remit
> of getting tests to run consistently in th
33 matches
Mail list logo
