On 22/10/2010 08:20, Paul Moore wrote:
On 22 October 2010 04:31, Ron Adam wrote:
When it's in the stdlib, the -m option should work just like any other
script run from the stdlib.
What path hacking are you thinking of?
On Windows, neither the "python" executable nor scripts in
C:\Pythonxx\Sc
On 22 October 2010 04:31, Ron Adam wrote:
> When it's in the stdlib, the -m option should work just like any other
> script run from the stdlib.
>
> What path hacking are you thinking of?
On Windows, neither the "python" executable nor scripts in
C:\Pythonxx\Scripts are in the PATH by default. On
On 10/21/2010 07:13 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
Or for that matter a plain "pysetup". It would be the one that a plain
"python" would get you.
If 'pysetup' is simply a shell script that invokes 'python -m setup'
using the current search path, I guess that's true.
On Windows, how
Eric Smith wrote:
Or for that matter a plain "pysetup". It would
be the one that a plain "python" would get you.
If 'pysetup' is simply a shell script that invokes 'python -m setup'
using the current search path, I guess that's true.
On Windows, however, it seems to me that the current 'python
On 10/21/2010 4:44 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:01:56 -0500
Ron Adam wrote:
On Ubuntu, I use python, python2.7, python3.1, python3.2 and that is what I
type to use that particular version. The -m option seems to me to be the
easiest to do and works with all of these.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:01:56 -0500
Ron Adam wrote:
>
> On Ubuntu, I use python, python2.7, python3.1, python3.2 and that is what I
> type to use that particular version. The -m option seems to me to be the
> easiest to do and works with all of these.
>
> python2.7 -m setup
> python3
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ron Adam wrote:
> There are probably others I don't remember or know about.
"python -m site" is another handy one if you're trying to debug sys.path issues
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
___
On 10/12/2010 09:59 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to
install a module?
"C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"?
If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install".
Anoth
On 21/10/2010 00:33, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
Hi
Sorry for the late response
On 8 October 2010 13:02, Fred Drake wrote:
I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
"python -m setup ...".
I'd say +1 for this option. It has the advantage that it's very clear
which
Hi
Sorry for the late response
On 8 October 2010 13:02, Fred Drake wrote:
> I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
> "python -m setup ...".
I'd say +1 for this option. It has the advantage that it's very clear
which python environment you're installing (or whate
> Assume, for the sake of the argument, that we patched the
> MSI so it (optionally) added the installing version of Python
> (and, optionally ./scripts) to the PATH. What, then, do we
> do with existing PATH entries which point to older/other Python
> installations? Option (a) says: clear them
> a
On 12/10/2010 7:17 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:33:52 +0200,
=?windows-1252?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= wrote:
So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
Please submit a patch to the i
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:33:52 +0200,
=?windows-1252?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= wrote:
> > So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
> > Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
>
> Please submit a patch to the installer, then.
>
> I'm still skeptic
> So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
> Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
Please submit a patch to the installer, then.
I'm still skeptical about adding PATH, because
a) I find that fairly invasive, and despise long paths myself
(it hur
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
>
>> If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to
>> install a module?
>> "C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"?
>> If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install".
>
>Another thing bothers me about this. Wit
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
...
> I would assume (am I wrong?) that the canonical way of installing
> modules on Windows for "non-advanced" users under distutils2 would
> still be to download and run a binary installer.
Yes this won't change.
Regards
Tarek
On 12/10/2010 12:55, Paul Moore wrote:
On 12 October 2010 00:42, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
I know. My point was you can't do it by default and installing a
module is something even a less experienced user usually does.
Typing "C:\PythonXX\pysetup" is harder compared to "setup.py install"
and sol
On 12 October 2010 00:42, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
> I know. My point was you can't do it by default and installing a
> module is something even a less experienced user usually does.
> Typing "C:\PythonXX\pysetup" is harder compared to "setup.py install"
> and solving this problem by modifying your
On 12/10/2010 00:11, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
"pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
I recall an old issue on the bug tracker in which the latter proposal
was widely discussed and finally rejected for reasons I can't remember
(a
Le 12/10/2010 01:11, Giampaolo Rodolà a écrit :
> Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
> "pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
> I recall an old issue on the bug tracker in which the latter proposal
> was widely discussed and finally rejected for reasons I can't rem
On 10/11/2010 5:17 PM, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
2010/10/8 Eric Smith:
On 10/8/10 10:26 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
In any case, these could be a simple shell script wrapping 'python -m
setup'.
It could even take a --use-python-version option to select the pythonX.Y
it
used, without having to encode
2010/10/12 Antoine Pitrou :
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:11:24 +0200
> Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
>> Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
>> "pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
>
> If you add C:\PythonXY to your path, you can run "python".
I know. My point was you can'
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
"pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
I recall an old issue on the bug tracker in which the latter proposal
was widely discussed and finally rejected for reasons I can't remember
On Windows I think it'
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to
install a module?
"C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"?
If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install".
Another thing bothers me about this. With the current scheme,
if you have multiple Pythons available,
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:11:24 +0200
Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
> Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
> "pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
If you add C:\PythonXY to your path, you can run "python".
Regards
Antoine.
__
Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
"pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
I recall an old issue on the bug tracker in which the latter proposal
was widely discussed and finally rejected for reasons I can't remember
(and it seems I can't even find the bug right now)
2010/10/8 Eric Smith :
> On 10/8/10 10:26 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> In any case, these could be a simple shell script wrapping 'python -m
>> setup'.
>> It could even take a --use-python-version option to select the pythonX.Y
>> it
>> used, without having to encode the Python version number in the
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Hehe. What's the story behind changing the name from Cheeseshop to PyPI btw
> ?
> I found the first one much nicer
A through investigation revealed that the Cheeseshop did not in fact have
any cheese at all. Not even Wensleydale.
--
Daniel
Am 08.10.2010 17:21, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 08/10/2010 16:07, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Oct 08, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>>> python-setup is a lot like python setup.py
>>> pysetup is shorter
>>> pyegg is even shorter :-)
>> wfm!
>
> To avoid any potential confusion, wfm
On Oct 9, 2010, at 1:07 , James Y Knight wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:22 , Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from me. I sincerely dislike the Perl-esque -m stuff.
>>
>> As a Perl/Python guy I have to object to calling the -m stuff
On Oct 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:22 , Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>
>> +1 from me. I sincerely dislike the Perl-esque -m stuff.
>
> As a Perl/Python guy I have to object to calling the -m stuff Perl-esque.
> This is a very Pythonish thing. In the P
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 14:44, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 09:25, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> ...
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 09:25, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> ...
> pysetup is shorter
>>
>> Let's use pysetup !
>>
>> ..
On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:22 , Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> +1 from me. I sincerely dislike the Perl-esque -m stuff.
As a Perl/Python guy I have to object to calling the -m stuff Perl-esque. This
is a very Pythonish thing. In the Perl world we never treat modules as
scripts; they are sep
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:31:07 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I am not about to bikeshed on the name, but I would like to publicly
> shed a single tear for no one even suggesting a Monty Python name
> closer than "quiche". I think going with PyPI over Cheeseshop helped
> put an end to that naming sche
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 09:25, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> ...
>>> > pysetup is shorter
>
> Let's use pysetup !
>
> ...
>> I won't bikeshed as long as we stay away from conflicting
On 10/8/10 2:41 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
...
On Windows it can't be a shell script or batch file, but needs to be an
executable. setuptools already deals with this.
Why ? The script-wrapping feature Setuptools has is on my radar for
d2, but I a
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
...
>
> On Windows it can't be a shell script or batch file, but needs to be an
> executable. setuptools already deals with this.
Why ? The script-wrapping feature Setuptools has is on my radar for
d2, but I am not sure why it's an advantage in th
On 10/8/10 10:26 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
No underscores, please. :)
Indeed!
In any case, these could be a simple shell script wrapping 'python -m setup'.
It could even take a --use-python-version option to select the pythonX.Y it
used, without having to encode the Python version number in th
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> pkg_manager ?
>
> 1. Underscores are evil. Don't do that.
>
> 2. Mixed shortened + written-out names are just nasty.
>
>> Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> pkg_manager ?
1. Underscores are evil. Don't do that.
2. Mixed shortened + written-out names are just nasty.
> Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
Did we finally decide it could be done without setup.py enti
Le 10/08/2010 04:31 PM, Jon Ribbens a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 11:04:35AM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> In the larger universe of programs, it might make for more intuitive
>> remembering of the command to use a prefix (either py or python) though.
>>
>> python-setup is a lot like pyth
Le 10/08/2010 05:25 PM, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> ...
pysetup is shorter
>
> Let's use pysetup !
+1 on pysetup. Reusing the well known "setup" and adding py as a prefix
w
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
...
>> > pysetup is shorter
Let's use pysetup !
...
> I won't bikeshed as long as we stay away from conflicting names.
+1.
So. Let's add pysetup in distutils2, that will be
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 08.10.2010 16:26, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>
>>>- query pypi
>>>- browse what's installed
>>>- install/remove projects
>>>- create releases and upload them
>>>
>>>pkg_manager ?
>>
>> No underscores, please. :)
>>
>> Actually, a decent wrapper s
Le 08/10/2010 17:31, Jon Ribbens a écrit :
> I'd just like to say "pypackage" again.
In the Python world, a package is a directory with an __init__.py file.
Distutils and distutils2 try to avoid confusion and call the other
things “distributions”.
Of course, everyone outside of the Python world
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:04:35 -0400
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > In the larger universe of programs, it might make for more intuitive
> > remembering of the command to use a prefix (either py or python) though.
> >
> > python-se
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 11:04:35AM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> In the larger universe of programs, it might make for more intuitive
> remembering of the command to use a prefix (either py or python) though.
>
> python-setup is a lot like python setup.py
> pysetup is shorter
> pyegg is even sh
On 08/10/2010 16:07, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Oct 08, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
python-setup is a lot like python setup.py
pysetup is shorter
pyegg is even shorter :-)
wfm!
To avoid any potential confusion, wfm is a common tla for the following
phrases:
Whole Foods Mar
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:04:35 -0400
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> In the larger universe of programs, it might make for more intuitive
> remembering of the command to use a prefix (either py or python) though.
>
> python-setup is a lot like python setup.py
> pysetup is shorter
> pyegg is even shorte
On Oct 08, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>python-setup is a lot like python setup.py
>pysetup is shorter
>pyegg is even shorter :-)
wfm!
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
htt
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:26:36AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 08, 2010, at 03:22 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
> >Yes that what I was thinking about -- I am not too worried about this,
> >since every Linux deals with the 'more than one python installed'
> >case.
>
> Kind of. but anyway...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:26:36 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >- query pypi
> >- browse what's installed
> >- install/remove projects
> >- create releases and upload them
> >
> >pkg_manager ?
>
> No underscores, please. :)
>
> Actually, a decent wrapper script could just be called 'setup'. My
> comma
Am 08.10.2010 16:26, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>>- query pypi
>>- browse what's installed
>>- install/remove projects
>>- create releases and upload them
>>
>>pkg_manager ?
>
> No underscores, please. :)
>
> Actually, a decent wrapper script could just be called 'setup'. My
> command-not-found on U
On Oct 08, 2010, at 03:22 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>Yes that what I was thinking about -- I am not too worried about this,
>since every Linux deals with the 'more than one python installed'
>case.
Kind of. but anyway...
>> I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
>
2010/10/8 Michael Foord :
> On 08/10/2010 14:28, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:22, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>>
>>> Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
>>
>> So, sorry for backing up to this, but isn't it true that many projects
>> do custom stu
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:22, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
>
> So, sorry for backing up to this, but isn't it true that many projects
> do custom stuff in their setup.py that the
On 08/10/2010 14:28, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:22, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
So, sorry for backing up to this, but isn't it true that many projects
do custom stuff in their setup.py that they wouldn't be able
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 15:22, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Mmm.. setup.py is gone in D2, and setup.py will be the marker of d1.
So, sorry for backing up to this, but isn't it true that many projects
do custom stuff in their setup.py that they wouldn't be able to do in
setup.cfg? Is the goal really to mak
2010/10/8 Fred Drake :
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> It doesn't seem very nice to have a version in the script. Can we just
>> call it distutils? Or py-dist?
>
> If we go this route, then
>
> - "make altinstall" should include the version number in the name of *any*
>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 08.10.2010 09:05, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In the Distutils2 project, we'll have quite a few scripts that can be
>> called via -m
>>
>> $ python -m distutils2.depgraph : shows a dependency graph
>> $ python -m distutils2.install
Am 08.10.2010 14:02, schrieb Fred Drake:
> Georg:
>> What happened to "python setup.py action"? Or is this a step towards
>> not requiring setup.py at all?
>
> I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
> "python -m setup ...". There will be three cases:
>
> - d2 pr
2010/10/8 Fred Drake :
> Georg:
>> What happened to "python setup.py action"? Or is this a step towards
>> not requiring setup.py at all?
>
> I'm in favor of add a top-level setup module that can be invoked using
> "python -m setup ...". There will be three cases:
>
> - d2 projects without a setu
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> It doesn't seem very nice to have a version in the script. Can we just
> call it distutils? Or py-dist?
If we go this route, then
- "make altinstall" should include the version number in the name of *any*
scripts it installs.
- "make in
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 01:24:09PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 09:05, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> > The feedback I received for this is pretty clear: people want a single
> > script that can be called directly. e.g.
> >
> > $ distutils2 depgraph
> > $ distutils2 install
> > $ d
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 09:05, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> The feedback I received for this is pretty clear: people want a single
> script that can be called directly. e.g.
>
> $ distutils2 depgraph
> $ distutils2 install
> $ distutils2 run command
>
> Fair enough, I can add that script in the project and
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
wrote:
> +1 from me. I sincerely dislike the Perl-esque -m stuff.
-m is generally for developer utilities, or "incidental" utilities
provided by modules that are mainly intended for use as library
modules. It's also very handy for runn
Am 08.10.2010 09:05, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
> Hello,
>
> In the Distutils2 project, we'll have quite a few scripts that can be
> called via -m
>
> $ python -m distutils2.depgraph : shows a dependency graph
> $ python -m distutils2.install : installs a project
> $ python -m distutils2.run command :
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
...
> e.g. a -MINOR.MINOR
MAJOR.MINOR
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
wrote:
> -On [20101008 09:07], Tarek Ziadé (ziade.ta...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>I just wanted to make sure that once distutils2 is back in the stdlib,
>>it's OK for us to add that script in the distribution.
>
> Ah, one thing that came to m
-On [20101008 09:07], Tarek Ziadé (ziade.ta...@gmail.com) wrote:
>I just wanted to make sure that once distutils2 is back in the stdlib,
>it's OK for us to add that script in the distribution.
Ah, one thing that came to mind:
is this script supposed to be installed in /usr{/local}/bin? If so, how
-On [20101008 09:07], Tarek Ziadé (ziade.ta...@gmail.com) wrote:
>The feedback I received for this is pretty clear: people want a single
>script that can be called directly. e.g.
>
>$ distutils2 depgraph
>$ distutils2 install
>$ distutils2 run command
+1 from me. I sincerely dislike the Perl-esque
Hello,
In the Distutils2 project, we'll have quite a few scripts that can be
called via -m
$ python -m distutils2.depgraph : shows a dependency graph
$ python -m distutils2.install : installs a project
$ python -m distutils2.run command : runs a distutils2 command
etc..
The feedback I received
73 matches
Mail list logo
