John Nagle writes:
> "egg" files are usually more trouble than they're worth.
I find it really funny you say so, just after another thread where you
proved yourself unable to come up with a working Python environment
lacking an already packaged RPM of version 2.7...
I know "egg" are not standar
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> With all the tools installed, it's a matter of a few minutes effort to
> build from scratch:
>
> run ./configure
> run make
> run sudo make altinstall
>
> As a total n00b who'd never used make before, it took me 25 minutes
> effort on my fi
Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:16:01 +0100
Jérôme a écrit:
> Hi all.
>
> Like others before me, I'd like to show you my first python attempt, in the
> hope in can get advices on how to improve my coding.
Hi.
Thank you for your useful advices.
- I tried to clarify the dependencies of my program by adding
>
> In short: if you need to write "system" scripts on Unix, and you need them
> to work reliably, you need to stick with Python 2.x.
I think, understanding the coding of the characters helps a bit.
I can not figure out how the example below could not be
done on other systems.
D:\tmp>chcp
Page
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:43:23 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> With all the tools installed, it's a matter of a few minutes effort to
>> build from scratch:
[...]
> Now, granted, this was Debian and I can't speak for Centos. But it would
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I daresay any decent package manager would be able to provide the
> complete tool chain for building Python from source. But I have no idea
> what tools are needed -- gcc and make, obviously, but what else? Maybe it
> really is as simple as
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:43:23 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> With all the tools installed, it's a matter of a few minutes effort to
>>> build from scratch:
>
> [...]
>> Now,
Am 19.01.2012 12:05, schrieb Chris Angelico:
> What I do is apt-get the most obvious things (g++/gcc and make, in
> this case), then run configure and see if it bombs, then run make and
> see if it bombs, and whenever there's a "command not found", attempt
> to apt-get that command as a package nam
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Much easier:
>
> $ apt-get build-dep python
In the specific case where that's available, it's fine. I've not
gotten into the habit of trusting it, though, largely because a lot of
what I compile _isn't_ in the package manager - otherwise
I'm using the multiversion flag in setuptools (-m) to be able to run
many different projects, without modifying the global environment.
Then thanks to pkg_resources magic and setuptools I can get
automatically everything loaded.
Now the problem is that we want to be able to run tests. The best
...
Actually the main problem which I've been banging my head quite a few
days alreays is this:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
ERROR: Failure: AttributeError ('module' object has no attribute 'walk')
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:20:00 -0500, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> Nobody likes to be told to brush their teeth, eat their vegetables or
> clean their room. Then they grow up and learn that life is full of things
> that you do because you have t
On Jan 19, 4:44 am, Jérôme wrote:
> - Most importantly, new 2.1 version comes with an absolutely pure french-free
> english-only screenshot, for your convenience.
Thanks for this update. However, i need to stress that while the
English language is fundamental to writing Python code, we are not
On 1/19/2012 12:56 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote:
John Nagle writes:
"egg" files are usually more trouble than they're worth.
I find it really funny you say so, just after another thread where you
proved yourself unable to come up with a working Python environment
lacking an already packaged RPM of
I'm writing some code to analyse pstats statistics, and I'm trying to
have some working unit tests.
Suppose I have in the test directory another directory 'profiling',
which contains 'x.py', and 'b.py'.
Now running the following code in a script works perfectly,
class TestStatParser(unittest.T
On 01/19/2012 05:05 PM, John Nagle wrote:
I can do it, I just have better things to do than system
administration. The fact that Python doesn't "just work" is
part of why it's losing market share.
Maybe in your home is losing market (if you're so sure post some sources).
If it can be
Andrea Crotti wrote:
> I'm writing some code to analyse pstats statistics, and I'm trying to
> have some working unit tests.
> Suppose I have in the test directory another directory 'profiling',
> which contains 'x.py', and 'b.py'.
>
> Now running the following code in a script works perfectly,
On 01/19/2012 05:36 PM, Peter Otten wrote:
I don't believe you.
Quite sure it does:
[andrea@precision test]$ cat simple.py
import profile
from os import path
import sys
prof_path = path.join(path.dirname(__file__), 'profiling')
sys.path.append(prof_path)
import x
profile.run('x.f1()')
[and
Andrea Crotti wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 05:36 PM, Peter Otten wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>
> Quite sure it does:
>
> [andrea@precision test]$ cat simple.py
> import profile
> from os import path
> import sys
>
> prof_path = path.join(path.dirname(__file__), 'profiling')
> sys.path.append(pr
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:52:55 + (GMT)
Wilfried Falk wrote:
> Hello Pythons,
>
> attached to this email is a pdf-file which shows, that "+=" does not
> work well all along. Mybe somebody of you is able to explain my
> observations in this respect. I will be glad about an answer. Best
> regar
Hi,
In a unit test, I want to verify that a function returns a
cookielib.LWPCookieJar object. What is the correct way of doing that?
1) First I tried to figure out its type with type(return_value) but it
is
2) return_value.__class__ .__name__ gives 'LWPCookieJar', which is bettter
3) isinstanc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Jabba Laci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a unit test, I want to verify that a function returns a
> cookielib.LWPCookieJar object. What is the correct way of doing that?
> 3) isinstance(return_value, cookielib.LWPCookieJar) seems to be the
> best way, however somewhere I re
22 matches
Mail list logo
