Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes: > packaging already improves a lot over distutils. I don't see where I don't dispute that. > there is a credibility problem, except for people who think "distutils > is sh*t". I don't think you have to take such an extreme position in order to suggest that th

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:14:46 + (UTC) Vinay Sajip wrote: > > Some > projects can be worked on in comparative isolation; other things, like > packaging, need inputs from a wider range of people to gain the necessary > credibility. packaging already improves a lot over distutils. I don't see wh

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes: > But what makes you think that redesigning everything would make those > Windows features magically available? Nothing at all. > This isn't about "representing" "constitutencies". python-dev is not a > bureaucracy, it needs people doing actual work. People c

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/23/2012 03:20 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: Dag Sverre Seljebotn astro.uio.no> writes: Of course you can always do anything, as numpy.distutils is a living proof of. Question is if it is good design. Can I be confident that the hooks are well-designed for my purposes? Only you can look at th

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:14:42 + (UTC) Vinay Sajip wrote: > Kudos to Tarek, Éric and others for taking this particular world on their > shoulders and re-energizing the discussion and development work to date, but > it > seems the net needs to be spread even wider to ensure that all constituenci

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Dag Sverre Seljebotn astro.uio.no> writes: > Of course you can always do anything, as numpy.distutils is a living > proof of. Question is if it is good design. Can I be confident that the > hooks are well-designed for my purposes? Only you can look at the design to determine that. > And of c

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Antoine Pitrou pitrou.net> writes: > Remember that distutils2 was at first distutils. It was only decided to > be forked as a "new" package when some people complained. > This explains a lot of the methodology. Also, forking distutils helped > maintain a strong level of compatibility. Right, but

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/23/2012 02:27 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: Dag Sverre Seljebotn astro.uio.no> writes: As for me, I believe I've been rather blunt and direct in my criticism in this thread: It's been said by Tarek that distutils2 authors that they don't know anything about compilers. Therefore it's almost unc

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:27:52 + (UTC) Vinay Sajip wrote: > > For me, the bigger problem with the present distutils2/packaging > implementation > is that it propagates the command-class style of design which IMO caused so > much pain in extending distutils. Perhaps some of the dafter limitatio

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Dag Sverre Seljebotn astro.uio.no> writes: > As for me, I believe I've been rather blunt and direct in my criticism > in this thread: It's been said by Tarek that distutils2 authors that > they don't know anything about compilers. Therefore it's almost > unconceivable to me that much good can

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:53 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Nick, I am unfamiliar with python-ideas rules: should we continue > discussion in distutils-sig entirely, or are there some specific > topics that are more appropriate for python-ideas ? No, I think I just need to join distutils-sig. pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > If you think that, you haven't read the whole thread. This is true, I kinda gave up early yesterday. It's good that it became better. //Lennart ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org htt

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: >> In the end, I think this discussion is very similar to all previous >> packaging/building/installing discussions: There is a lot of emotions, >> and a lot of willingness to declare t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > In the end, I think this discussion is very similar to all previous > packaging/building/installing discussions: There is a lot of emotions, > and a lot of willingness to declare that "X sucks" but very little > concrete explanation of *why

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/23/2012 12:37 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: Why do I get the feeling that most people who hate distutils and want to replace it, has transferred those feelings to distutils2/packaging, mainly because of the name? In the end, I think this discussion is very similar to all previous packaging/bu

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Why do I get the feeling that most people who hate distutils and want to replace it, has transferred those feelings to distutils2/packaging, mainly because of the name? In the end, I think this discussion is very similar to all previous packaging/building/installing discussions: There is a lot of

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Paul Moore writes: > I suppose if you're saying that "pip install lxml" should download and > install for me Visual Studio, libxml2 sources and any dependencies, > and run all the builds, then you're right. But I assume you're not. Indeed, if only a source package is available, it should. Tha

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > > Every time windows users download and install a binary, they are taking > a chance. I try to use a bit more sense than some people, but I know it > is not risk free. There *is* a third party site that builds installers, > but should I

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/22/2012 6:09 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote: Easy enough on Posix platforms, perhaps, but what about Windows? Every time windows users download and install a binary, they are taking a chance. I try to use a bit more sense than some people, but I know it is not risk free. There *is* a third party

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:11 PM, PJ Eby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> >> On 06/22/2012 10:40 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> >>> On 22 June 2012 06:05, Nick Coghlan  wrote: distutils really only plays at the SRPM level - there is no defined OS

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn < d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 06/22/2012 10:40 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On 22 June 2012 06:05, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> distutils really only plays at the SRPM level - there is no defined OS >>> neutral RPM equivalent. That's w

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

More fuel; fire: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2012/6/22/hate-hate-hate-everywhere/ ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Paul Moore gmail.com> writes: > As a user, I guess not that much. I may be misremembering bad > experiences with different things. We've had annoyances with > self-signed jars, and websites. It's generally more about annoying > "can't confirm this should be trusted, please verify" messages which

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 22 June 2012 13:09, Vinay Sajip wrote: > Paul Moore gmail.com> writes: > >> Signed binaries may be a solution. My experience with signed binaries >> has not been exactly positive, but it's an option. Presumably PyPI >> would be the trusted authority? Would PyPI and the downloaders need to >> u

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > I suppose if you're saying that "pip install lxml" should download and > install for me Visual Studio, libxml2 sources and any dependencies, > and run all the builds, then you're right. But I assume you're not. So > why should I need to insta

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 22 June 2012 13:39, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Nick Coghlan writes: >  > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: >  > > Paul Moore writes: >  > > >  > >  > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. >  > > >  > > I think this desideratum is close to o

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Hi, On 6/22/12 1:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Donald Stufft 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 w

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Nick Coghlan writes: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: > > Paul Moore writes: > > > >  > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. > > > > I think this desideratum is close to obsolete these days, with webapps > > in "the cloud" downloading

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 22/06/2012 13:14, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 22, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> And what I am trying to say is that no matter how much effort gets put >> into trying to make build from source easy, it'll pretty much always >> not be even remotely trivial on Windows. > > It seems t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 22, 2012, at 07:49 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote: >The format-neutral alternative I used for logging configuration was a >dictionary schema - JSON, YAML and Python code can all be mapped to >that. Perhaps the relevant APIs can work at the dict layer. I don't much care whether it's ini, json, or ya

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 22, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >And what I am trying to say is that no matter how much effort gets put >into trying to make build from source easy, it'll pretty much always >not be even remotely trivial on Windows. It seems to me that a "Windows build service" is something the Py

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Paul Moore gmail.com> writes: > Signed binaries may be a solution. My experience with signed binaries > has not been exactly positive, but it's an option. Presumably PyPI > would be the trusted authority? Would PyPI and the downloaders need to > use SSL? Would developers need to have signing keys

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 22 June 2012 11:28, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > And I'm saying that would encourage a culture that's very dangerous from a > security perspective. Even if many uses binaries, it is important to > encourage a culture where it is always trivial (well, as trivial as we can > possibly make it, in

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 6:20 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > If by manifest you mean the build manifest, then that's not desirable: > the manifest contains the explicit filenames, and those are > platform/environment specific. You don't want this to be user-facing. > It appears I misunderstood t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > > The reason PyPI isn't one big security risk is that packages are built > from source, and so you can have some confidence that backdoors would be > noticed and highlighted by somebody. > > Having a common standards for bina

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/22/2012 12:20 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: What Bento does is have one metadata file for the source-package, and another metadata file (manifest) for the built-package.

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > > > What Bento does is have one metadata file for the source-package, and > another metadata file (manifest) for the built-package. The latter is > normally generated by the

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Dag Sverre Seljebotn astro.uio.no> writes: > Well, but I think you need to care about the whole process here. > > Focusing only on the "end-user case" and binary installers has the flip > side that smuggling in a back door is incredibly easy in compiled > binaries. You simply upload a binary t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:05:08 +1000 Nick Coghlan wrote: > > So here's some sheer pie-in-the-sky speculation. If people like > elements of this idea enough to run with it, great. If not... oh well: Could this kind of discussion perhaps go on python-ideas? Thanks Antoine. __

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/22/2012 11:38 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: What Bento does is have one metadata file for the source-package, and another metadata file (manifest) for the built-package. The latter is normally generated by the build process (but

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > > What Bento does is have one metadata file for the source-package, and > another metadata file (manifest) for the built-package. The latter is > normally generated by the build process (but follows a standard > nevertheless). Then

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/22/2012 10:40 AM, Paul Moore wrote: On 22 June 2012 06:05, Nick Coghlan wrote: distutils really only plays at the SRPM level - there is no defined OS neutral RPM equivalent. That's why I brought up the bdist_simple discussion earlier in the thread - if we can agree on a standard bdist_sim

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

David Cournapeau gmail.com> writes: > I agree having yet another format is a bit crazy, and am actually considering changing bento.info to be a yaml. I initially did got toward a cabal-like syntax instead for the following reasons: >   - lack of conditional (a must IMO, it is even more useful for

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 22 June 2012 06:05, Nick Coghlan wrote: > distutils really only plays at the SRPM level - there is no defined OS > neutral RPM equivalent. That's why I brought up the bdist_simple > discussion earlier in the thread - if we can agree on a standard > bdist_simple format, then we can more cleanly

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Donald Stufft > 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/inst

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

I think json probably makes the most sense, it's already part of the stdlib for 2.6+ and while it has some issues with human editablity, there's no reason why this json file couldn't be auto generated from another data structure by the "package creation tool" that exists outside of the stdlib (o

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > ini-style is often good enough, and failing that there's json. Or, you > just depend on PyYAML :) Except when PyYAML is packaged and distributed using dist.yaml :-) Regards, Vinay Sajip ___ Python-Dev mailing list P

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.org> wrote: > > On 6/22/12 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > I don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they are > > suitable for multi-line variables etc. (see zc.buildout) > > > > yaml

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On 6/22/12 9:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé  wrote: >>> >>> On 6/22/12 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> I don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they >>> are >>> suitable f

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/22/12 9:11 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: On 6/22/12 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: I don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they are suitable for multi-line variables etc. (see zc.buildout) yaml vs ini vs xxx seems to be

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On 6/22/12 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they are > suitable for multi-line variables etc. (see zc.buildout) > > yaml vs ini vs xxx seems to be an implementation detail, and my

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/22/12 7:05 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 don't understand what's the problem is with ini-style files, as they are suitable for mu

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Paul Moore writes: > >  > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. > > I think this desideratum is close to obsolete these days, with webapps > in "the cloud" downloading resources (including, but not limited to, > c

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > I don't want to argue over implementation details as I think that is > premature right now, so this > concept has a big +1 from me. RPM, deb, etc has a long history and a lot of > shared knowledge > so looking at them and adapting it to work

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Paul Moore writes: > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. I think this desideratum is close to obsolete these days, with webapps in "the cloud" downloading resources (including, but not limited to, code) on an as-needed basis. If you're *not* obtaining resources as-neede

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Donald Stufft 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 to see in the Bento

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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 di

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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 buil

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:46:58 +0200 > Dag Sverre Seljebotn 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 k

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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 *des

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:46:58 +0200 Dag Sverre Seljebotn 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. > > Here's the flip side:

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:04 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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 su

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. > Well, unless they're developers. ;-) Sometimes, the "end user" is a developer making use of a library. Development tools like distutils2, distribute/setuptools, bento would > *

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Can I take a step back and make a somewhat different point. Developer requirements are very relevant, sure. But the most important requirements are those of the end user. The person who simply wants to *use* a distribution, couldn't care less how it was built, whether it uses setuptools, or whatev

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/21/12 7:56 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: ... think any API has been removed or modified. In my opinion, distribute is the only project that should go forward since it's actively maintained and does not suffer from the bus factor. Yeah the biggest difference is Py3 compat, other than that af

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

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 sure if I understand. A project can't "give th

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/21/12 7:49 PM, PJ Eby wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tarek Ziadé > wrote: telling us no one that is willing to maintain setuptools is able to do so. (according to him) Perhaps there is some confusion or language barrier here: what I said at that t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 01:20 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: On 6/21/12 6:44 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: Yes. At the very least, there will be updated development snapshots (which are what buildout uses anyway). (Official releases are in a bit of a weird holding pattern. distribute's versioning scheme leads to

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > telling us no one that is willing to maintain setuptools is able to do so. > (according to him) Perhaps there is some confusion or language barrier here: what I said at that time was that the only people who I already *knew* to be capable of

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Hi, On 6/21/12 1:20 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: On 6/21/12 6:44 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: Yes. At the very least, there will be updated development snapshots (which are what buildout uses anyway). (Official releases are in a bit of a weird holding pattern. distribute's versioning scheme leads t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/21/12 6:44 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: Yes. At the very least, there will be updated development snapshots (which are what buildout uses anyway). (Official releases are in a bit of a weird holding pattern. distribute's versioning scheme leads to potential confusion: if I release e.g. 0.6.

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 12:26 PM, PJ Eby wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Chris McDonough mailto:chr...@plope.com>> wrote: On 06/21/2012 11:37 AM, PJ Eby wrote: On Jun 21, 2012 11:02 AM, "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" mailto:zo...@zooko.com>

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > On 06/21/2012 11:37 AM, PJ Eby wrote: > >> >> On Jun 21, 2012 11:02 AM, "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" > > wrote: >> > >> > Philip J. Eby provisionally approved of one of the patches, except for >> > some specific requi

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 6/21/12 5:50 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: A minor backwards incompat here to fix that issue would be appropriate, if only to be able to say "hey, that issue no longer exists" to folks who condemn the entire ecosystem based on that bug. At least, that is, if there will be another release of se

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 11:45 AM, PJ Eby wrote: On Jun 21, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chris McDonough" mailto:chr...@plope.com>> wrote: > - Install "package resources", which are non-Python source files that > happen to live in package directories. I love this phrasing, by the way ("non-Python source files"). A

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 11:37 AM, PJ Eby wrote: On Jun 21, 2012 11:02 AM, "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" mailto:zo...@zooko.com>> wrote: > > Philip J. Eby provisionally approved of one of the patches, except for > some specific requirement that I didn't really understand how to fix > and that now I don't exac

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > On 06/21/2012 10:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> That will give at least 3 mechanisms for Python code to get onto a system: >> >> 1. Python dist ->  converter ->  system package ->  system Python path >> >> 2. Python dist ->  system Python i

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 21, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chris McDonough" wrote: > - Install "package resources", which are non-Python source files that > happen to live in package directories. I love this phrasing, by the way ("non-Python source files"). A pet peeve of mine is the insistence by some people that such files

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 21, 2012 11:02 AM, "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" wrote: > > Philip J. Eby provisionally approved of one of the patches, except for > some specific requirement that I didn't really understand how to fix > and that now I don't exactly remember: > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2009

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes: > > The Python community covers a broad spectrum of use cases, and I > suspect that's one of the big reasons packaging can get so contentious > - the goals end up being in direct conflict. Currently, I've > identified at least half a dozen significant communities

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:02:58 -0300 "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" wrote: > > Fortunately, this issue is fixable! I opened a bug report and I and a > others have provided patches that makes setuptools stop doing this > behavior. This makes the above documentation true again. The negative > impact on featu

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Standard assumptions about the behaviour of site and distutils cease to be > valid once setuptools is installed … > - advocacy for the "egg" format and the associated sys.path changes that > result for all Python programs running on a sys

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 10:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: A tool to generate an OS-specific system package from a Python library project should be unrelated to a Python distribution *installer*. Instead, you'd use related tools that understood how to unpack the distribution packaging format to build one or mor

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > On 06/21/2012 09:29 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>> My only comment on that is this: Since this is a problem related to the >>> installation of Python distributions, it should deal with the problems >>> that >>> Python developers have more

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 03:23 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: On 6/21/12 2:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: Guido was asked about build issues and scientific software at PyData this spring, and his take was that "if scientific users have concerns that are that special, perhaps you just need to go and do your ow

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 21, 2012, at 07:48 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: > >>I don't know about Red Hat but both Ubuntu and Apple put all kinds of stuff >>on the default sys.path of the system Python of the box that's related to >>their software's concerns only.

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On 06/21/2012 09:29 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: My only comment on that is this: Since this is a problem related to the installation of Python distributions, it should deal with the problems that Python developers have more forcefully than non-Python developers and non-programmers. Thanks to venv,

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 21, 2012, at 08:51 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: >The reason it's disappointing to see OS vendors mutating the default sys.path >is because they put *very old versions of very common non-stdlib packages* >(e.g. zope.interface, lxml) on sys.path by default. The path is tainted out >of the box

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Hi, On 6/21/12 7:56 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: On 6/21/12 11:08 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: ... David Cournapeau's Bento project takes the opposite approach, everything is explicit and without any magic. http://cournape.github.com/Bento/ It had its 0.1.0 release a week ago. Please, I don't w

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM, PJ Eby wrote: > So, if we are to draw any lesson from the past, it would seem to be, "make > sure that the people who'll be doing the work are actually going to be > available through to the next Python version". Thanks for that write-up - I learned quite a few t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Jun 21, 2012, at 07:48 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: >I don't know about Red Hat but both Ubuntu and Apple put all kinds of stuff >on the default sys.path of the system Python of the box that's related to >their software's concerns only. I don't understand why people accept this >but get crazy ab

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

Chris McDonough plope.com> writes: > On 06/21/2012 04:45 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > A packaging PEP needs to explain: > > - what needs to be done to eliminate any need for monkeypatching > > - what's involved in making sure that *.pth are *not* needed by default > > - making sure that executable

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Right - clearly enumerating the features that draw people to use > setuptools over just using distutils should be a key element in any > PEP for 3.4 > > I honestly think a big part of why packaging ended up being incomplete > for 3.3 is tha

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > Is it reasonable to even assume there is only one-sys.path-to-rule-them-all? > And that users install "the set of libraries they need" into a common place? >  This quickly turns into failure, because Python is used for many, many > tasks,

  1   2   >