On 06/21/2012 09:05 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On 6/21/12 4:26 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
project should give me so I can compile its extensions ? I think this
has nothing to do with the tools/implementations.
If you sit down and ask your self: what are the information a python
I'm not
On 6/21/12 10:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
...
I think we should, as you proposed, list a few projects w/ compilation
needs -- from the simplest to the more complex, then see how a standard
*description* could be used by any tool
It's not clear to me what you mean by description. Package
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
End users should not need packaging tools on their machines.
Sort of riffing on this idea, I cannot seem to find a specification for what a
Python
package actually is. Maybe the first effort should focus on this instead of
arguing one
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
On 6/21/12 10:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
...
I think we should, as you proposed, list a few projects w/ compilation
needs -- from the simplest to the more complex, then see how a standard
*description* could be
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:46:58 +0200
Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
The other thing is, the folks in distutils2 and myself, have zero
knowledge about compilers. That's why we got very frustrated not to see
people with that knowledge come and help us in this area.
On 06/21/2012 11:04 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On 6/21/12 10:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
...
I think we should, as you proposed, list a few projects w/ compilation
needs -- from the simplest to the more complex, then see how a standard
*description* could be used by any tool
It's not clear
On 06/22/2012 12:05 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/21/2012 11:04 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On 6/21/12 10:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
...
I think we should, as you proposed, list a few projects w/ compilation
needs -- from the simplest to the more complex, then see how a standard
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.netwrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:46:58 +0200
Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
The other thing is, the folks in distutils2 and myself, have zero
knowledge about compilers. That's why we got very
On 6/21/12 11:55 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding of what bento is: bento is not a
compiler or anything like that. It is a set of libraries that work
together to configure, build and install a python project.
Concretely, in bento, there is
- a part that
Hi,
On 6/21/12 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
End users should not need packaging tools on their machines.
Sort of riffing on this idea, I cannot seem to find a specification for
what a Python
package actually is.
FWIW according to
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
Hi,
On 6/21/12 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
End users should not need packaging tools on their machines.
Sort of riffing on this idea, I cannot seem to find a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Donald Stufft donald.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea i'm hoping for is to stop worrying about one implementation over
another and
hoping to create a common format that all the tools can agree upon and
create/install.
Right, and this is where it encouraged me
On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- I reject setup.cfg, as I believe ini-style configuration files are
not appropriate for a metadata format that needs to include file
listings and code fragments
- I reject bento.info (http://bento.info), as I think if we accept
Am 19.06.2012 23:46, schrieb Éric Araujo:
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Éric. Just quoting this paragraph,
since it contains the possibilities to judge:
With beta coming, a way to deal with that unfortunate situation needs
to be found. We could (a) grant an exception to packaging
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
I don’t think (a) would give us enough time; we really want a few months
(and releases) to hash out the API (most notably with the pip and buildout
developers) and clean the bdist situation. Likewise (c) would require
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
What is the status of the third party module on PyPI (distutils2)?
Does it contain all fixes done in the packaging module? Does it have
exactly the same API? Does it support Python 2.5 to 3.3, or maybe also
2.4?
How is the
This may be crazy, but just idly wondering: is there an opportunity
for the PSF to make things better by throwing some money at it?
Packaging appears to be one of those Hard problems, it might be a good
investment.
Only if somebody steps forward to take the money - and somebody who can
be
On 6/19/12 11:46 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
...
I don’t think (a) would give us enough time; we really want a few
months (and releases) to hash out the API (most notably with the pip
and buildout developers) and clean the bdist situation. Likewise (c)
would require developer (my) time that is
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
So I prefer to hold it and have a solid implementation in the stldib. The
only thing I am asking is to retain ourselves to do *anything* in distutils
and continue to declare it frozen, because I know it will be tempting to do
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:00:52 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
The question is what will happen after 3.3. There doesn't seem to be a
lot of activity around the project, does it?
I think the desire is
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:05:43 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
So I prefer to hold it and have a solid implementation in the stldib. The
only thing I am asking is to retain ourselves to do *anything* in
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:36:35 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Nick nailed it (again).
Let's make things clear: packaging is suffering from a lack of
developer involvement, and a lack of user interest.
What makes you think that removing packaging from 3.3, and adding the
constraint
On 6/20/12 11:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Tarek Ziadéta...@ziade.org wrote:
So I prefer to hold it and have a solid implementation in the stldib. The
only thing I am asking is to retain ourselves to do *anything* in distutils
and continue to declare it
On 6/20/12 11:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:00:52 +1000
Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
The question is what will happen after 3.3. There doesn't seem to be a
lot of activity around the
On 6/20/12 11:12 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:05:43 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtmandirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Tarek Ziadéta...@ziade.org wrote:
So I prefer to hold it and have a solid implementation in the stldib. The
only thing I am asking is to
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Deciding to remove packaging from 3.3 is another instance of the same
mistake, IMO.
What's the rationale for leaving it in, when it's known to be
incomplete/unfinished?
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
___
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:22:07 +0200
Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
I tried to improve Distutils and I was stopped and told to start
distutils2, because
distutils is so rotten, any *real* change/improvment potentially brakes
the outside world.
If distutils was so rotten, distutils2 would
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:51:03 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Deciding to remove packaging from 3.3 is another instance of the same
mistake, IMO.
What's the rationale for leaving it in, when it's known to be
On 6/20/12 11:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:22:07 +0200
Tarek Ziadéta...@ziade.org wrote:
I tried to improve Distutils and I was stopped and told to start
distutils2, because
distutils is so rotten, any *real* change/improvment potentially brakes
the outside world.
If
On 6/20/12 11:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:51:03 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrousolipsisat pitrou.net writes:
Deciding to remove packaging from 3.3 is another instance of the same
mistake, IMO.
What's the rationale for leaving
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:51 +0200
Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Most of the distutils2 improvements (new PEPs, setup.cfg, etc.) were
totally possible in distutils, weren't they?
I started there, remember ? And we ended up saying it was impossible to
continue without
breaking the
On 6/20/12 12:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:51 +0200
Tarek Ziadéta...@ziade.org wrote:
Most of the distutils2 improvements (new PEPs, setup.cfg, etc.) were
totally possible in distutils, weren't they?
I started there, remember ? And we ended up saying it was
Am 20.06.2012 12:39, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:51 +0200
Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Most of the distutils2 improvements (new PEPs, setup.cfg, etc.) were
totally possible in distutils, weren't they?
I started there, remember ? And we ended up saying it was
On 20 June 2012 10:12, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I think the whole idea that distutils should be frozen and improvements
should only go in distutils2 has been misled. Had distutils been
improved instead, many of those enhancements would already have been
available in 3.2 (and
On 20 June 2012 11:34, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
On 6/20/12 11:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:51:03 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrousolipsisat pitrou.net writes:
Deciding to remove packaging from 3.3 is another instance
On 06/20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Let's make things clear: packaging is suffering from a lack of
developer involvement,
Absolutely.
And to be more precise: solid hands-on leadership. Eric wrote it in his
original mail: both packaging maintainers are burned out/busy. That’s a state
that is
On 6/20/12 1:19 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 20 June 2012 11:34, Tarek Ziadéta...@ziade.org wrote:
On 6/20/12 11:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:51:03 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajipvinay_sa...@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
Antoine Pitrousolipsisatpitrou.netwrites:
Deciding to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:20:04 +0200
Hynek Schlawack h...@ox.cx wrote:
and a lack of user interest.
Maybe I'm getting you wrong here, but ISTM that proper packaging is in the
short list on nearly everybody’s “things I wish they'd fix in Python”.
I agree, but I think people have also been
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:11:03 +0100
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the first question is, do we need an enhanced distutils in the
stdlib?
I would answer a different question: we definitely need a better
distutils/packaging story. Whether it's in the form of distutils
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Tarek Ziadé ta...@ziade.org wrote:
Yeah maybe this subset could be left in 3.3
and we'd remove packaging-the-installer part (pysetup, commands, compilers)
I think it's a good idea !
OK, to turn this into a concrete suggestion based on the packaging docs.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Agreed, especially if the proven in the wild criterion is required
(people won't rush to another third-party distutils replacement, IMHO).
The existence of setuptools means that proven in the wild is never
going to fly -
On 20 June 2012 13:53, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
3.4 PEP: Simple binary package distribution format
--
bdist_simple has been discussed enough times, finally seeing a PEP
for it would be nice :)
I
On 20/06/2012 14:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
3.4 PEP: Standard library package downloader (pysetup)
--
# Amongst other things, this needs to have a really good security
story (refusing to install unsigned packages by default, etc)
packaging.depgraph —
On 20/06/2012 13:31, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
packaging.metadata is the implementation of all metadata versions.
standalone too.
packaging.pypi is the PyPI crawler, and has fairly advanced features.
I defer to Alexis to tell us
is it's completely stable
packaging.pypi is functionally working but
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Alexis Métaireau ale...@notmyidea.org wrote:
On 20/06/2012 14:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
3.4 PEP: Standard library package downloader (pysetup)
--
# Amongst other things, this needs to have a really good security
story
Le mer. 20 juin 2012 15:28:56 CEST, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
There would be two main parts to such a PEP:
- defining the command line interface and capabilities (pysetup)
- defining the programmatic API (packaging.pypi and the dependency
graph management)
Okay. I don't think that the command line
On 20 June 2012 14:16, Alexis Métaireau ale...@notmyidea.org wrote:
On 20/06/2012 13:31, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
packaging.metadata is the implementation of all metadata versions.
standalone too.
packaging.pypi is the PyPI crawler, and has fairly advanced features. I
defer to Alexis to tell us
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Agreed, especially if the proven in the wild criterion is required
(people won't rush to another third-party distutils replacement, IMHO).
The existence of setuptools means
Hi all,
Sorry I can’t take the time to reply to all messages, this week I’m
fully busy with work and moving out.
To answer or correct a few things:
- I am lacking time these months, but that’s because I’m still getting
used to having a full-time job and being settled into a new country.
Am 20.06.2012 17:34, schrieb Éric Araujo:
Hi all,
Sorry I can’t take the time to reply to all messages, this week I’m
fully busy with work and moving out.
To answer or correct a few things:
- I am lacking time these months, but that’s because I’m still getting
used to having a
On 6/20/12 5:44 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 20.06.2012 17:34, schrieb Éric Araujo:
Hi all,
Sorry I can’t take the time to reply to all messages, this week I’m
fully busy with work and moving out.
To answer or correct a few things:
- I am lacking time these months, but that’s because I’m still
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Agreed, especially if the proven in the wild criterion is required
(people won't rush to another third-party distutils replacement, IMHO).
The
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:29 AM, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Agreed, especially if the proven in the wild criterion is required
On 06/20/2012 11:57 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:29 AM, PJ Ebyp...@telecommunity.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Agreed, especially if the proven
Reverting and writing a full packaging PEP for 3.4 sounds like a wise
course of action to me.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Éric Araujo wrote:
This leaves (d), after long reflection, as my preferred
choice, even though I disliked the idea at first (and I fully expect
Tarek to feel the same way).
Thanks for reading; please express your opinion (especially Tarek as
d2 project lead, Georg as RM and Guido as BDFL).
On 19 June 2012 22:46, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
[...]
This leaves (d), after long reflection, as my preferred choice, even though
I disliked the idea at first (and I fully expect Tarek to feel the same
way).
I agree with Nick. It's regrettable, but this is probably the wisest
On 06/19/2012 05:46 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Hi all,
We need to make a decision about the packaging module in Python 3.3.
Please read this message and breathe deeply before replying :)
...
With beta coming, a way to deal with that unfortunate situation needs to
be found. We could (a) grant an
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:46:30 -0400
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
I don’t think (a) would give us enough time; we really want a few
months (and releases) to hash out the API (most notably with the pip and
buildout developers) and clean the bdist situation. Likewise (c) would
Nick nailed it (again).
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Reverting and writing a full packaging PEP for 3.4 sounds like a wise
course of action to me.
Regards,
Nick.
--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
