At 12:12 AM 4/10/2008 -0700, Stephen Hansen wrote:
>I think PJE's idea here is very good. Just include certain files and
>such in the RPM/DEB that will satisfy the
>"python-package-management" system. For RPM/DEB users and their OS's
>database of packages, its irrelevant largely-- they'll still
Stephen Hansen 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), MacPorts (FreeBSD por
>
> > > 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), MacPorts (FreeBSD ports-like), and
> NetBSD's pkgsrc are all viab
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
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
"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
>
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
> >
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 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
zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am skeptical that prorgammers are going to be willing to use a new
> database format. They already have a database -- their filesystem --
> and they already have the tools to control it -- mv, rm, and
> PYTHONPATH. Many of them already hate the existence the
>
zooko wrote:
> 1. You can't conveniently install eggs into a non-system directory,
> such as ~/my-python-stuff.
>
> 2. If you allow even a single egg to be installed into your
> PYTHONPATH, it will change the semantics of your PYTHONPATH.
I discovered another annoyance with eggs the other
zooko wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> zooko wrote:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078243.html
>
>>> Here is a simple proposal: make the standard Python "import"
>>> mechanism notice eggs on the PYTHONPATH and insert them (into the
On 08/04/2008, zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, since I posted my proposal two weeks ago I have pointed a
> couple of Python hackers who currently refuse to use eggs at the URL:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078243.html
>
> They both agreed that it mad
At 10:01 AM 4/8/2008 -0700, zooko wrote:
>On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > zooko wrote:
>
>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078243.html
>
> >> Here is a simple proposal: make the standard Python "import"
> >> mechanism notice eggs on the PYTHONPATH and
On Mar 26, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> zooko wrote:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078243.html
>> Here is a simple proposal: make the standard Python "import"
>> mechanism notice eggs on the PYTHONPATH and insert them (into the
>> *same* location) on
zooko wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Here is a simple proposal: make the standard Python "import"
> mechanism notice eggs on the PYTHONPATH and insert them (into the
> *same* location) on the sys.path.
>
> This eliminates the #1 problem with eggs -- that they don't easily
> work when installing them
Has somebody made a list of the problems with eggs? Because I use them
all the time and hasn't encountered any problems whatsoever, myself...
:) So I am a bit surprised at the various discussions about them.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.o
Folks:
Here is a simple proposal: make the standard Python "import"
mechanism notice eggs on the PYTHONPATH and insert them (into the
*same* location) on the sys.path.
This eliminates the #1 problem with eggs -- that they don't easily
work when installing them into places other than your s
19 matches
Mail list logo
