Re: free profiler in python
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Ondrej > > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:01:52AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > the python-profile is in non-free, so what free tool do you use for > > profiling your python programs? There is cProfile in python2.5, which > > seems to be free, but for showing > > the result I need pstat, which is again non-free. Is there a DFSG free > > way to profile python programs? > > A few year ago I wrote http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/pyprof/ > which set out to do what you want. Unfortunately I've failed to > follow up on that since then. If there's enough interest it might be > interesting to dust it off, get it up to date with python 2.5 and try > to get a package in Debian. Excellent, that's exactly what I am looking for. I'll keep it in mind, if I start working on something like that, I'll start from your work and package it for Debian. Also I like that you chose a very permissive license (MIT). Thanks for your work. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: free profiler in python
* Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-09 00:01:52 +0100]: > the python-profile is in non-free, so what free tool do you use for > profiling your python programs? There is cProfile in python2.5, which > seems to be free, but for showing > the result I need pstat, which is again non-free. Is there a DFSG free > way to profile python programs? I use lsprofcalltree, which fires up KCacheGrind to visualize the results of profiling from cProfile (aka lsprof). -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Debian Python developers, make your packaging concerns known (was: Current distutils-sig discussion on package management)
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Python distutils-sig group is currently discussing the topic of > package management, how setuptools interacts with package managers, > and what changes are desirable as a result. > > http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > I urge anyone who's had problems getting Python setuptools and > Debian package management working together, to join this discussion > so that your issues can be considered in whatever changes ensue. To reiterate: This discussion is happening *now*. If ever you have looked at Python packaging (e.g. distutils or setuptools) and said "no, *no*, NO!", then this is the time to get involved so that changes can be made for the better. I have no knowledge of *what* the problems are; I only know that there are people in this group who persistently complain about how Python's current packaging practices are broken with respect to Debian packaging. http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:23:26 -0700 I'm back at Google and *really* busy for another week or so, so I'll have to postpone the rest of this discussion for a while. If other people want to chime in please do so; if this is just a dialog between Phillip and me I might incorrectly assume that nobody besides Phillip really cares. Please, if you have suggestions for what Python packaging could do better, and improve Debian packaging of Python packages, *now* is the time to join that discussion over at the distutils-sig. -- \ “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly and I did. I | `\ said I didn't know.” —Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Python developers, make your packaging concerns known (was: Current distutils-sig discussion on package management)
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The Python distutils-sig group is currently discussing the topic of > > package management, how setuptools interacts with package managers, > > and what changes are desirable as a result. > > > > http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [...] > > > > I urge anyone who's had problems getting Python setuptools and > > Debian package management working together, to join this discussion > > so that your issues can be considered in whatever changes ensue. > > To reiterate: This discussion is happening *now*. If ever you have > looked at Python packaging (e.g. distutils or setuptools) and said > "no, *no*, NO!", then this is the time to get involved so that changes > can be made for the better. > > I have no knowledge of *what* the problems are; I only know that there > are people in this group who persistently complain about how Python's > current packaging practices are broken with respect to Debian > packaging. > > http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:23:26 -0700 > > I'm back at Google and *really* busy for another week or so, so > I'll have to postpone the rest of this discussion for a while. If > other people want to chime in please do so; if this is just a > dialog between Phillip and me I might incorrectly assume that > nobody besides Phillip really cares. > > Please, if you have suggestions for what Python packaging could do > better, and improve Debian packaging of Python packages, *now* is the > time to join that discussion over at the distutils-sig. Thanks for letting us know. I also don't know what the particular problems are, my only experience was with the initial packaging of python-enthought-traits + mayavi2 where I was unable to force setuptools not to download stuff from the net, so I simply asked upstream to provide me a simple script to do the whole compilation+installation of all python files+modules. Then the packaging was dead easy. And Varun and Kmap then fixed it with the help of upstream, so now even the build script is not necessary anymore. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Python developers, make your packaging concerns known (was: Current distutils-sig discussion on package management)
Ben Finney writes: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The Python distutils-sig group is currently discussing the topic of > > package management, how setuptools interacts with package managers, > > and what changes are desirable as a result. > > > > http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [...] > > > > I urge anyone who's had problems getting Python setuptools and > > Debian package management working together, to join this discussion > > so that your issues can be considered in whatever changes ensue. > > To reiterate: This discussion is happening *now*. If ever you have > looked at Python packaging (e.g. distutils or setuptools) and said > "no, *no*, NO!", then this is the time to get involved so that changes > can be made for the better. > > I have no knowledge of *what* the problems are; I only know that there > are people in this group who persistently complain about how Python's > current packaging practices are broken with respect to Debian > packaging. the discussion on the python-dev and distutils-sig ML's is about packaging of eggs, not Python packaging in general. You can find a more complete thread on the python-dev ML, and a summary of the BoF discussion in the python.org wiki. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Python developers, make your packaging concerns known
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney writes: > > I have no knowledge of *what* the problems are; I only know that > > there are people in this group who persistently complain about how > > Python's current packaging practices are broken with respect to > > Debian packaging. > > the discussion on the python-dev and distutils-sig ML's is about > packaging of eggs, not Python packaging in general. It's moved on from that. An explicit request to discuss Python packaging has been made (in a new thread started today). http://mid.gname.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Jeff Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Request for Input re Packaging Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:17:54 -0500 In researching the state of packaging, I've been reading the archives and all the bug reports filed against distutils. I'd like though to get some examples of particularly troublesome uses of setup.py, to pull together and propose some changes to make their use case a bit easier. So far such cases I've been made aware of are Twisted, numpy and SciPy. If you know of a tough case where the developer had to jump through hoops to make it work, please point me to it. I'd also like to get suggestions of improvements to PyPI, which I've not seen much discussion about. [...] Again: if *anyone* involved with packaging Python modules or applications for Debian has *any* suggestions for changes that would make things easier in Debian, please join that thread and contribute. Now is the time. -- \ “Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion | `\ is answers that may never be questioned.” —anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Python developers, make your packaging concerns known
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An explicit request to discuss Python packaging has been made (in a > new thread started today). > > http://mid.gname.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sorry, http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the correct one. -- \ "Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy." | `\-- Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
