On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> ...but let's make sure we keep caring about the tools that people really
> use, which includes both setuptools and distribute.
The lack of a meaningful transition plan is where I think we fell down
with PEP 345 & 386, and is also the main re
On 03/02/2013 13:27, Tres Seaver wrote:
As for setuptools (as opposed to distribute), I don't think we should
care anymore.
Yes, you need to care. It is *still* true today that distribute and
setuptools remain largely interchangeable, which is the only thing that
makes distribute viable, in th
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
> right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
> another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the
> language or library, it's fine
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
> TL;DR, strong -1 on the stdlib "getting out of the build business".
> Also as I think Nick already mentioned one of the wins of
> Setup-Requires-Dist is to have a standard way to bring in extra build
> requirements (such as bento) so if we have b
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Erik Bray wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Vinay Sajip
> wrote:
> > Éric Araujo netwok.org> writes:
> >
> >> Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
> >> story is needed :)
> >
> > Agreed. Just because distutils can't easil
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Éric Araujo netwok.org> writes:
>
>> Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
>> story is needed :)
>
> Agreed. Just because distutils can't easily/reliably build things that are
> better built with SCons/WAF/tup/wh
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> David Cournapeau gmail.com> writes:
>
>> You are putting the words out of the context in which those were
>> written: it is stated that the focus is on the general architecture
>
> OK, no offence was meant. Thanks for the clarification.
No wor
David Cournapeau gmail.com> writes:
> You are putting the words out of the context in which those were
> written: it is stated that the focus is on the general architecture
OK, no offence was meant. Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
__
On 4 Feb 2013 09:22, "David Cournapeau" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Vinay Sajip
wrote:
> > Simon Cross gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
> >
> > In Bento's author's own words - "Weak documentation", "Mediocre code
quality",
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Simon Cross gmail.com> writes:
>
>> For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
>
> In Bento's author's own words - "Weak documentation", "Mediocre code quality",
> "at a lower level, a lot of code leaves to be desired" may b
He is being self deprecating. Its also true that python dev can't recommend
bento wholesale. That is fine with me.
On Feb 3, 2013 5:36 PM, "Vinay Sajip" wrote:
> Simon Cross gmail.com> writes:
>
> > For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
>
> In Bento's author's own words -
Simon Cross gmail.com> writes:
> For the record, all the reasons listed at [1] appear trivial.
In Bento's author's own words - "Weak documentation", "Mediocre code quality",
"at a lower level, a lot of code leaves to be desired" may be trivial if David
is just being self-deprecating, but what if
Éric Araujo netwok.org> writes:
> Looks like we agree that a basic tool able to bootstrap the packaging
> story is needed :)
Agreed. Just because distutils can't easily/reliably build things that are
better built with SCons/WAF/tup/whatever, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have
the ability to bui
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Bento is interesting, but I wouldn't jump to heap praise onto it. Apart from
> the
> somewhat idiosyncratic source style, David Cournapeau himself points to what
> he
> regards as weaknesses in it[1].
For the record, all the reasons listed a
Daniel Holth gmail.com> writes:
> Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
> impressive. I am reacting to all the hate heaped on setup tools when I think
> the underlying DistUtils design is a big part of the problem. My feeling is
> that stdlib packaging tools sho
They can be signed with pypi detached signatures already. It works now
exactly as for sdist.
The innovation was supposed to be in convenience for the signer, in
allowing keys to be trusted per package and for a list of dependencies and
the expected signing keys to be shared easily. Does anyone have
Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
> So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
> integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
> format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
> accepted format supported by PEPs, hence the interes
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The rationale for the distutils freeze is "don't break setuptools".
> That rationale still holds.
IIRC, the historical issue that triggered the freeze was not that the
distutils refactoring broke setuptools, but that it did so in what was
supp
> The pip integration is basically to allow pip to find wheels on PyPI
> or any local indexes you have, and to install them via the "pip
> install" command.
it also offers "pip wheel" for building wheels (using bdist_wheel) locally
for your requirements, since wheels wouldn't be pervasive on PyPI
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Simon Cross
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
>> Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
>> impressive.
>
> If Bento is cool, is there some way we can help it gain more traction
> in the Python ecosystem?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
> impressive.
If Bento is cool, is there some way we can help it gain more traction
in the Python ecosystem? Not necessarily by incorporating it into
stdlib, but perhaps
Bento is the only available packaging tool to heap praise onto and it is
impressive. I am reacting to all the hate heaped on setup tools when I
think the underlying DistUtils design is a big part of the problem. My
feeling is that stdlib packaging tools should be for bootstrapping and
reference, mo
Daniel Holth writes:
> Wheel makes it possible for Python to get out of the build tool
> business. Just install your preferred tools with a concise bootstrap
> installer.
If this is true, it would also have been possible with eggs, yet it
didn't happen. Why do you think it will happen now or am
Hi,
Le 03/02/2013 13:57, Daniel Holth a écrit :
> My position is that these days distutils doesn't belong in the standard
> library any more than Django does.
You can install anything you want, but first you need an installer. I
think that a language needs packaging formats and basic build and
in
My position is that these days distutils doesn't belong in the standard
library any more than Django does. So I am mildly opposed to supporting it
when you should be using better designed third party tools like Bento or
setuptools. Wheel makes it possible for Python to get out of the build tool
bus
On Feb 03, 2013, at 04:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>- someone else volunteers to be BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426 (MvL, perhaps?)
On principle, I think it's a good idea to try to recruit another PEP czar.
I'm not volunteering though, due to lack of time.
Cheers,
-Barry
___
On 4 Feb 2013 00:54, "Paul Moore" wrote:
>
> On 3 February 2013 14:41, Daniel Holth wrote:
> > The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having
the
> > software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple
wheel
> > installer script with Python that did not e
On 3 February 2013 14:41, Daniel Holth wrote:
> The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
> software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
> installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
> would be able to inst
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:41:29 -0500
Daniel Holth wrote:
> The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
> software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
> installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
> would be able
The neat thing about wheel is that you can install them without having the
software used to build them. So we might try to provide a very simple wheel
installer script with Python that did not even depend on DistUtils. You
would be able to install pip etc with that tool. There is no need to put
whe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2013 08:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I'm sure it is perfectly possible to evolve and bugfix distutils
> without breaking distribute. What's more, distribute is actually
> maintained and can evolve to accomodate the fixes.
I wouldn't be o
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> MvL raised this concern last time the wheel format was discussed, and, to
> date,
> nothing has happened to address it.
My apologies to Daniel, it appears I misremembered this part of the
previous discussion. Daniel assures me MvL was object
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:08:04 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
> > Paul Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
> >> integration. But the pip developers don't
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
> Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
>> integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
>> format just because it exists - they
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
> integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
> format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
> accepted format supported by PEP
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:34:36 +
Paul Moore wrote:
>
> So it's perfectly possible to use wheels right now, without the pip
> integration. But the pip developers don't want to integrate the wheel
> format just because it exists - they want the assurance that it's an
> accepted format supported by
On 3 February 2013 11:27, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> I don't expect anything I want to do to be particularly controversial,
>> but I think it's worth trying to get it right (even if it delays wheel
>> support in pip for a few more weeks).
>
> Will wheel be implemented in distutils?
There are no pla
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:44:33 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
> > right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
> > another author or another uncle. Bu
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
> right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
> another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the
> language or library, it's fine
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> In doing the detailed review of PEP 426 as BDFL-Delegate, I keep
> noticing confusing problems with the current spec that mean I want to
> become a *co-author* on the spec, rather than explaining to the
> current authors the aspects I object t
In doing the detailed review of PEP 426 as BDFL-Delegate, I keep
noticing confusing problems with the current spec that mean I want to
become a *co-author* on the spec, rather than explaining to the
current authors the aspects I object to, until they produce a version
that I'm happy with (this is f
41 matches
Mail list logo
