> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> The Zen of Python says, among other things, "There should be one-- and
> preferably only one --obvious way to do it". Build systems seem to me like a
> great place to apply that.
We have a sliding scale of complexity in what a projec
On 21 January 2016 at 07:10, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> I'd like to request to join this team to help maintain backports of the Let's
> Encrypt dependencies, especially python-sphinx.
>
> I've read and agree to the Python Modules Team Policy. My Alioth username is
> hlieberman-guest.
I can'
On January 22, 2016 6:27:08 PM EST, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
>> ...
>>> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will
>just append
>>> a different prefix
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> ...
>> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append
>> a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead
>> of invoki
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>> Forget that pip can fetch files from PyPI and install them for a moment and
>> consider the command ``pip install .``. Fundamentally this is similar to the
>> command ``make install``
On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append
> a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead
> of invoking ``python setup.py install —root /tmp/something/`` which is what
On Jan 22, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>Forget that pip can fetch files from PyPI and install them for a moment and
>consider the command ``pip install .``. Fundamentally this is similar to the
>command ``make install`` right?
Please remind me what the long term plan for this is. Let
On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it
>needs to be updated for Stretch.
Thanks Scott for the badly needed update.
Some comments, apologies for the lack of good quoting, or if I've read the
diff incorrectly
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Hey Donald, thanks for starting this conversation. I for one am super
> appreciative of all the consideration you give for Debian's little slice of
> the world.
>
> There's a lot to unpack in this thread, and I'm a little under the weather
Hey Donald, thanks for starting this conversation. I for one am super
appreciative of all the consideration you give for Debian's little slice of
the world.
There's a lot to unpack in this thread, and I'm a little under the weather[1],
so hopefully this makes sense.
Big +1 for recording the file
On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:47:28 PM Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package
> > they are managed locally by the installed python system. They are also
> > unnecessary because setup
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package they
> are managed locally by the installed python system. They are also unnecessary
> because setuptools/pip/python is smart enough to relate .pyc files to their
> .
On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:32:45 PM Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > Currently --record includes the .pyc files which is both unneeded and bad.
> > Before this gets added either in setuptools or by us, this needed to be
> > fixed.
> Why is this
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Currently --record includes the .pyc files which is both unneeded and bad.
> Before this gets added either in setuptools or by us, this needed to be fixed.
Why is this bad? Isn't the point that the record file lists the files
installed b
On Friday, January 22, 2016 12:11:27 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
> 3) It slipped my mind that you have to pass an additional flag to setuptools
> right now to get the full file list (pip passes that flag unconditionally)
> however I'm going to poke setuptools to see about getting them to add the
>
> let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files
> (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild
> uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed
> in Build-Depends).
FTR: (after talking about it on IRC)
the "deal" was abou
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>>
>>> to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you
>>> want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils
[Paul Tagliamonte, 2016-01-22]
> I'm sure if you had a real and honest conversation with Donnald, there'd
> be middleground. I've never found him to be the sort to bully or ignore
> technical arguments.
and why we cannot find a middle ground here? Did I say something bad
about Donald? Quite the co
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files
> (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild
> uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed
> in Build-Depends)
On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >
> > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you
> > want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils?
>
> Essentially, ensure that setuptools not distutils is us
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:18:36PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files
> (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild
> uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed
> in Build-Dep
[Donald Stufft, 2016-01-22]
> Now, that’s the high level overview, there’s an easier, more automatic
> way that could maybe just be added to pybuild (Not sure exactly how
> pybuild works) where instead of invoking the setup.py as:
>
> python setup.py install (or whatever commands/args you’re p
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
> to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you
> want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils?
Essentially, ensure that setuptools not distutils is used in a setup.py. There
are generally three kinds of setup.py files:
1
Hi,
[Donald Stufft, 2016-01-21]
> I'd like to suggest a change to the Debian Policy around Python packages that
> will help enable the world of Python packaging to continue to progress
> forward.
[...]
> I have a series of improvements that I'd like to make to the packaging
> toolchain that will
24 matches
Mail list logo
