Robert Collins writes:
> Yah, packaging permissions are an installation problem, and setup.py
> is (no longer) intended for installation.
Thanks, that is what I thought too.
Have followed up in the bug report.
--
Brian May
Yah, packaging permissions are an installation problem, and setup.py
is (no longer) intended for installation.
-Rob
On 5 April 2018 at 10:25, Brian May wrote:
> Robert Collins writes:
>
>> Replied on the bug :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> He responded, he is not using pip, but creating a "Void package" fro
Robert Collins writes:
> Replied on the bug :)
Thanks.
He responded, he is not using pip, but creating a "Void package" from
source.
I am inclined respond, as he is not using pip, he needs to ensure the
permissions are correct.
--
Brian May
Replied on the bug :)
On 4 April 2018 at 20:04, Brian May wrote:
> Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
>
>> just anecdotal support: my umask is 077 as well, have been doing uploads
>> to pypi for a while, never had report from the users about any problem.
>> The reasons could be either it indeed doesn't
Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
> just anecdotal support: my umask is 077 as well, have been doing uploads
> to pypi for a while, never had report from the users about any problem.
> The reasons could be either it indeed doesn't matter or nobody uses my
> projects ;-)
Same here.
I just got a bug rep
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Brian May wrote:
> * Shouldn't sdist be ignoring my umask considering it is generating
> packages for public consumption?
IMO sdist should be deterministic in the reproducible builds sense:
https://reproducible-builds.org/
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018, Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
> As an upstream maintainer of certain packages on pypi, it has come to my
> attention that my packages have files in the source package with
> permission 600 or 700 (and my owner and group). This is most likely
> because my umask is set to 077, bec
7 matches
Mail list logo
