Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

Hi Jonas, DuniterPy v0.60.0 has been released. I will try to release Silkaj v0.8.0 as soon as possible. Kind regards, Maël On Mo, Sep 21, 2020 at 20:21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting m...@moul.re (2020-09-21 19:28:53) How are you doing with the packaging? What step

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

Hi Jonas, How are you doing with the packaging? What steps have been done? What's left on your list? I released a v0.58.0 which would be the last one with Python 3.5 support. I am planning a v0.60.0 which drops Python 3.5 and uses Scrypt from v3.6 standard library. Silkaj v0.8.0 distribution

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

>=19.3.0', 'base58==2.*,>=2.0.0', 'jsonschema==3.*,>=3.0.2', 'libnacl==1.*,>=1.6.1', 'pyaes==1.*,>=1.6.1', 'pylibscrypt==1.*,>=1.8.0', 'pypeg2==2.*,>=2.15.2'], extras_require={"dev": ["black==19.

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

What I can easily do is generate a setup.py from the pyproject.toml. There is dephell which does that: <https://dephell.readthedocs.io/cmd-deps-convert.html> On So, Sep 6, 2020 at 14:32, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting moul (2020-09-06 14:14:01) Ok, then most likely Poetry needs

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

Ok, then most likely Poetry needs to be integrated into this Python build system. On So, Sep 6, 2020 at 12:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting moul (2020-09-06 11:51:03) I do not think Poetry is required for the packaging. This this the software used for the development environment. The

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

Moul, you listed license as being AGPL-3+, but it seems code is in fact licensed as GPL-3+ - am I missing something, or is a relicensing planned? You are right this is GPL-3+, my mistake. On Sa, Sep 5, 2020 at 14:00, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Moul, you listed license as being AGPL-3+, but it

Bug#969572: ITP: python-duniterpy - Duniter Python API

Smedegaard wrote: Quoting moul (2020-09-06 11:40:54) > Moul, you listed license as being AGPL-3+, but it seems code is in > fact licensed as GPL-3+ - am I missing something, or is a > relicensing planned? You are right this is GPL-3+, my mistake. Ok. Just wanted to make sure :-)