[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: This is handled by setuptools/pip. It cannot be converted to a distutils feature request, as distutils does not handle dependencies. -- resolution: -> out of date stage: needs patch -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed __

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alex Grönholm added the comment: Python 3.3 is entering beta soon. The develop command is a must have, especially now that virtualenv is part of the official Python distribution. Can someone summarize what still needs to be done to get this feature merged? -- nosy: +agronholm ___

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Merged yesterday and created this patch. Will refresh my memories by reading all messages again and review. -- dependencies: -Add **kwargs to reinitialize_command Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file24660/fe817128d2fc.diff __

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by chris : -- nosy: +chris ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailma

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by David Barnett : -- nosy: +mu_mind ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: >> What’s more practical for you, a review or a patch? I think a review is better(thanks for your time:) ), because some changes maybe needed after I have finished all the issues against the develop command. -- ___ Python

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Thanks for the updated patch. There are things that should be removed (for example functions like get_develop_method, given that we only support packaging-based projects), and there are a few things to clean up in the tests. What’s more practical for you, a re

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by higery : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file23387/adb2cb19ca9b.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Uns

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: >> higery, can you give us a status update? Do you have the time to ... Sorry to reply to you so late, I will read carefully these reviews asap and try to make an updated patch before 12th. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: higery, can you give us a status update? Do you have the time to address current reviews or would you like me to make an updated patch? I’d like to incorporate this command as soon as possible to let people play with it, and then we’ll see about integration wi

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file23009/5359c895f841.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: > [...] so I keep this command name as 'develop' and the simple usage > of this command is : > pysetup run develop So far, so good. > BTW, most developers in this list have agreed that 'develop' is a > kind of install command, so I also add an entry funtion > 'ins

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alexis Metaireau added the comment: On 08/18/2011 05:54 PM, higery wrote: > Then do you also mean support that for setuptools install is also not > necessary in packaging core? setuptools install is only supported in packaging because it's a widely used thing, and many python distributions ar

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: >>IOW, in my opinion, support for setuptools develop command is not needed in >>packaging core Then do you also mean support that for setuptools install is also not necessary in packaging core? >>and still be taken care directly be the users wanting to run python se

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alexis Metaireau added the comment: Yep, packaging is not keeping the .egginfo directories, or at least does not plan to keep them (It should be the case currently but I haven't checked recently) in the upcoming release, so I would go on removing support for setuptools' develop command here :

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: Alexis Metaireau added the comment: >>I'm not sure why you're talking about it in the context of develop, can you >>clarify this? My consideration is : if in Packaging we always convert .egg-info directory to .dist-info directory, then my two different kinds of ways

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alexis Metaireau added the comment: IOW, in my opinion, support for setuptools develop command is not needed in packaging core, and still be taken care directly be the users wanting to run python setup.py develop: I don't see any reason to make it avaible on the stdlib. -- _

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alexis Metaireau added the comment: _run_setuptools_install is only intended to support setuptools setup.py, converting .egg-info to .dist-info, internally. IMO, you should not care about the differences between setuptools/distutils1/setuptools at this level, as it should be taken care at the

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: Through discussing inside or outside the mailing list on this bug tracker, current 'develop' has been made a kind of command other than an action. But there still isn't a consensus of the concrete implemention way, so I keep this command name as 'develop' and the sim

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by higery : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22932/af7d14ff129b.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Uns

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Great. I’ve been re-reading some old threads in the spirit of “pth files are evil”, so I wondered whether we could/should avoid them, but I think the criticism was directed against pth files edited after the initial installation, and pth files abusing the forma

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Carl Meyer added the comment: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Éric Araujo added the comment: > > [Carl] >> there's an implicit assumption that a .pth file is the most likely >> strategy. > If you have other ideas, please share them. No, I think that's the most promising strat

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: [Carl] > there's an implicit assumption that a .pth file is the most likely > strategy. If you have other ideas, please share them. [another message] > I don't see why the installation-location-finding for develop should > be any different than for a normal "pyset

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Carl Meyer added the comment: > I’ve reviewed the last patch. It looks like the code only installs > to the global site-packages, and there is no support to install to > the user site-packages or to another arbitrary location. > > On Windows, normal users seem to be able to write to the global

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Carl Meyer added the comment: > Ah, higery’s code already has an answer for me: it writes *two* paths in the > .pth file, one to the build dir (so that .dist-info is found) and one to the > modules root (for modules, built in place). Anyone sees a problem with that? > (For example huge sys.

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: I’ve reviewed the last patch. It looks like the code only installs to the global site-packages, and there is no support to install to the user site-packages or to another arbitrary location. On Windows, normal users seem to be able to write to the global site-p

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Ah, higery’s code already has an answer for me: it writes *two* paths in the .pth file, one to the build dir (so that .dist-info is found) and one to the modules root (for modules, built in place). Anyone sees a problem with that? (For example huge sys.path.)

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Oh, I just realized that one thing I insisted on was wrong. I pushed for the modules to be built in the build dir, as well as the dist-info dir, so that the build dir can be added to sys.path to let both import and packaging.database find the files. But this br

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Michael Mulich added the comment: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM, higery wrote: >> The develop command writes three pieces of information to the filesystem: >>  1. It calls upon the build action(s) to build the package relative to >> the package's root directory. >>  2. It calls the [build|ins

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file22614/b1b9da3b3d20.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing l

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by higery : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22632/2750cd9e2111.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Uns

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by higery : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file22630/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: 2011/7/12 Michael Mulich > > Michael Mulich added the comment: > > The wiki page has been edited to note what the develop command will > write to the file system. I'll restate it here as well... > > The develop command writes three pieces of information to the filesy

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: For now, you should not worry about pkg_resources. Write a simple pure-packaging implementation compatible with packaging; the setuptools and distribute developers will see if they want to add forward compatibility with our system. --

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file22628/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubs

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

higery added the comment: > > ** After the package has been installed in-place (using the develop > command), how does one identify it as an in development project (or in > development mode)? -- Case 3 and 6 touch on this topic (case 3 is a little > vague at this time), but doesn't explain what

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Michael Mulich added the comment: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: >> * Cases 2, 3, 5 and 6 are strongly related. > I don't know. I don't consider case 3 useful, because I don't consider > "I don't want to use a virtualenv" (without some clearer technical > justification) to b

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Carl Meyer added the comment: On 07/11/2011 09:17 AM, Michael Mulich wrote: > * Cases 2, 3, 5 and 6 are strongly related. I'd suggest you condense them > into a single use case. I agree with case 2 and 6 most, but have questions: > ** Why wouldn't one simply use a virtualenv? I don't know. I

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Alexis Metaireau added the comment: Carl, I believe that's this one: http://wiki.python.org/moin/UsecasesOfDevelop -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Carl Meyer added the comment: Can someone post a link here to the page of use cases that Michael just reviewed? I think the link came through on the Fellowship mailing list, but I'm not quickly finding it... -- ___ Python tracker

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Michael Mulich added the comment: After looking over the use cases, these are my findings and questions: * Cases 2, 3, 5 and 6 are strongly related. I'd suggest you condense them into a single use case. I agree with case 2 and 6 most, but have questions: ** Why wouldn't one simply use a virtua

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22614/b1b9da3b3d20.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Higery asked me why I recommended/asked that the .dist-info directory should be built in the build directory: “don't you feel it's a bit strange because we actually don't build the source except for some .c/.cpp files, but create a build directory?” There are a

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- dependencies: +Add **kwargs to get_reinitialized_command ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailin

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: Yes, this should of course be supported. Note that in packaging, packages_dir has been simplified to packages_root, which means that all modules and packages must be in the same directory. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Peter Waller added the comment: Hi - Great to see this functionality coming. There is one feature of it that I would really like to see fixed, which is currently broken in setuptools/distribute - I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum for this note, but I wanted to add it to the discussion some

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22377/aa68d35988bb.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- hgrepos: +29 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Peter Waller : -- nosy: +Peter.Waller ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyt

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Michael Mulich : -- nosy: +michael.mulich ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Éric Araujo added the comment: FTR, Xu Dehai (higery) is working on this for GSoC. We discussed the requirements on the mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/the-fellowship-of-the-packaging/browse_thread/thread/ae196efc4956b9e2 This message in particular defines clearly the requirement

[issue8668] Packaging: add a 'develop' command

Changes by Éric Araujo : -- assignee: tarek -> eric.araujo keywords: +gsoc title: add a 'develop' command -> Packaging: add a 'develop' command versions: +Python 3.3 -3rd party ___ Python tracker ___