Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Sep 27, 11:42 am, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2:09 am, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > behaviour with a specific invocation of 'setup.py'. But how can I > > disallow this from within the 'setup.py' program, so my users don't > > have to be aware of this unex

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

En Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:21:04 -0300, Max Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�: > "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> This recent blog post contains step-by-step instructions on using >> free tools to compile python extensions: >>

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Oct 2, 11:00 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > En Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:11:24 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi?: > > > Holden indicates that VS2003 is the current compiler used for the > > official Python distribution. Do you know how to use that program to > > compile an exe?

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

"Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > This recent blog post contains step-by-step instructions on using > free tools to compile python extensions: > > -- ... The package available here: http://www.develer.com/oss/GccWinB

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

En Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:11:24 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�: > Holden indicates that VS2003 is the current compiler used for the > official Python distribution. Do you know how to use that program to > compile an exe? Open the program, press F1 and read the documentation provided by its ve

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Sep 27, 10:44 am, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What would it entail to do this? Using py2exe + some installer (like > > Inno Setup) to create an installer that basically copies/installs the > > files into the site-packages folder or wherever the user ch

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What would it entail to do this? Using py2exe + some installer (like > Inno Setup) to create an installer that basically copies/installs the > files into the site-packages folder or wherever the user chooses? if the setup.py file is properly built, "python setup.py bdis

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sep 26, 5:52 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itsel

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Sep 26, 2:09 am, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > behaviour with a specific invocation of 'setup.py'. But how can I > disallow this from within the 'setup.py' program, so my users don't > have to be aware of this unexpected default behaviour? I don't have the answer for this, but I can

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Sep 26, 5:52 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Fredrik Lundh wrote: > >>> Paul Boddie wrote: > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > prominently on

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fredrik Lundh wrote: >>> Paul Boddie wrote: P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built packages o

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On Sep 26, 8:30 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Paul Boddie wrote: > > >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > >> prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > >> packages or installers. > > > for th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > >> P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most >> prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built >> packages or installers. > > for the record, I'd love to see a group of volunteers doing stuff like > th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On 26 Sep, 14:23, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Boddie wrote: > > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > > prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > > packages or installers. > > for the record, I'd love to see a group

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

Paul Boddie wrote: > P.S. Of course, the package maintainer problem manifests itself most > prominently on Windows where you often see people asking for pre-built > packages or installers. for the record, I'd love to see a group of volunteers doing stuff like this for Windows. there are plenty

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On 26 Sep, 13:44, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do I understand that correctly that essentially you're saying: if you want > your software released for a certain distro, package it up for it the way > it's supposed to be? I can understand that and said so myself - but then, > th

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

> I think most of the evolution has been in the surrounding tools, > although stuff like the new Debian Python policy could be complicating > factors. But I don't think the dependency stuff has changed that much > over the years. It might be, yet one thing is for sure: there have been various time

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On 26 Sep, 12:48, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Quoting me...] > > However, the argument that a dependency manager cannot deal with > > different system packages is a weak one: apt and Smart have shown that > > dependency management can be decoupled from package management. > >

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

> If you look at PEP 345... > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/ > > ...you'll see that the dependency information described is quite close > to how such information is represented in Debian packages and with > other dependency management systems. This isn't an accident because > the auth

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

On 26 Sep, 11:16, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Generally speaking, I think the real problem here is the clash > between "cultures" of dependency-handling. But it's certainly beyond > setuptools scope to cope with every imaginable package management system > out there, and provi

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > How would I modify my 'setup.py' script so that its default > > behaviour, when dependencies are not met, is not "download and > > install dependencies via setuptools" but instead "exit with error > > message"? > > easy_instal

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

Ben Finney wrote: > "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ben Finney schrieb: >> > To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the specified >> > dependencies are satisfied" behaviour, without the "... and, if >> > not, download and install them the Setuptools Way" behaviour. >> > >> >

Packaging and dependencies (was: setuptools without unexpected downloads)

"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my opinion, python is steering here to a direction like Java with > it's classpath: scripts like workingenv and it's successor (forgot > the name) provide hand-tailored environments for a specific > application. What a silly waste of resources.

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney schrieb: > > To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the specified > > dependencies are satisfied" behaviour, without the "... and, if > > not, download and install them the Setuptools Way" behaviour. > > > > Instead, I just want the def

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

Ben Finney schrieb: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> How can I, as the distributor of a package using setuptools, gain >> the benefits of dependency declaration and checking, without the >> drawback of unexpected and potentially unwanted download and >> installation? > > To clarify:

Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How can I, as the distributor of a package using setuptools, gain > the benefits of dependency declaration and checking, without the > drawback of unexpected and potentially unwanted download and > installation? To clarify: I want to retain the "assert the

setuptools without unexpected downloads

Howdy all, The Python distutils has been built upon by setuptools, providing features asked for by many developers. One of these is the ability for the 'setup.py' program to declare package dependencies in a fairly standardised way, and determine if they're met before attempting to install the pa