On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> As regards the format, bdist_dumb is about the right level - but
> having just checked it has some problems (which if I recall, have been
> known for some time, and are why bdist_dumb doesn't get used).
> Specifically, bdist_dumb puts the locati
On 9 Oct 2011, at 21:14, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 20:47, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
>> ...
What we can do however
is to see what bdist_egg does and define a new bdist command inspired by
it, but without zipping, pkg_resource cal
On 9 October 2011 20:47, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> ...
>>> What we can do however
>>> is to see what bdist_egg does and define a new bdist command inspired by
>>> it, but without zipping, pkg_resource calls, etc.
>>
>> Why? If you just want a dumb bdist
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
...
>> What we can do however
>> is to see what bdist_egg does and define a new bdist command inspired by
>> it, but without zipping, pkg_resource calls, etc.
>
> Why? If you just want a dumb bdist format, there's already bdist_dumb.
> Conversely, if
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> After all, if setuptools and then pkg_resources were turned
> down for inclusion in Python 2.5, it’s not now that we have packaging
that we’ll change our mind and just bless eggs.
Actually, that's not what happened. I withdrew the approved
On 08/10/2011 20:38, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
The first one is about licensing.
What I would be doing is basically copy&paste pieces of the python
stdlib modules (including tests) and, where needed, adjust them so
that they work with
On 9 October 2011 08:15, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> But one thing struck me - the "Installing Python Projects" document
>> talks about source distributions, but not much about binary
>> distributions.
> This is inherited from distutils docs, not a deliberate choice. We just
> haven’t thought much, if
Le 08/10/2011 17:14, Victor Stinner a écrit :
Le 08/10/2011 15:03, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:14:44 -0600
Jeffrey wrote:
I would like to suggest adding an integer presentation type for base 36
to PEP 3101. I can't imagine that it would be a whole lot more
difficult than the
Hi Paul,
Thanks for raising this during the development phase.
> I see that the Packaging documentation is now more complete (at least
> at docs.python.org) - I don't know if it's deemed fully complete yet,
> but I scanned the documentation and "Installing Python Projects" looks
> pretty much con
