At 10:32 AM 4/2/2009 -0500, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
Please comment.
An excellent idea. One thing I am not 100% clear on, is how to get
additions to sys.path to work correctly with this. Currently, when
pkg_resources adds a new egg to s
At 10:33 PM 4/2/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
That's going to slow down Python package detection a lot - you'd
replace an O(1) test with an O(n) scan.
I thought about this too, but it's pretty trivial considering that
the only time it takes effect is when you have a directory name that
mat
At 03:21 AM 4/3/2009 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
+1 speaking as a downstream packaging python for Debian/Ubuntu I
welcome this approach. The current practice of shipping the very
same file (__init__.py) in different packages leads to conflicts for
the installation of these packages (this is n
At 10:15 PM 4/3/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I should make it clear that this is not the case. I envision it to work
this way: import zope
- searches sys.path, until finding either a directory zope, or a file
zope.{py,pyc,pyd,...}
- if it is a directory, it checks for .pkg files. If it fi
At 02:00 PM 4/6/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Would this support the following case:
I have a package called mortar, which defines useful stuff:
from mortar import content, ...
I now want to distribute large optional chunks separately, but ideal
At 02:30 PM 4/7/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to stick with a simpler approach and look for
>> "__pkg__.py" files to detect namespace packages using that O(1) check ?
>
> Again - this wouldn't be O(1). More importantly, it breaks system
> packages, which now again have
At 04:58 PM 4/7/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2009-04-07 16:05, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:30 PM 4/7/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> >> Wouldn't it be better to stick with a simpler approach and look for
>> >> "__pkg__.py" files to detect n
At 05:02 PM 4/14/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I don't see the emphasis in the PEP on Linux distribution support and the
remote possibility of them wanting to combine separate packages back
into one package as good argument for adding yet another separate hierarchy
of special files which Pytho
At 10:59 PM 4/14/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
You are missing the point: When breaking up a large package that lives in
site-packages into smaller distribution bundles, you don't need namespace
packages at all, so the PEP doesn't apply.
The way this works is by having a base distribution bun
At 09:51 AM 4/15/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2009-04-15 02:32, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:59 PM 4/14/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> You are missing the point: When breaking up a large package that lives in
>> site-packages into smaller distribution bundles, you don&#
At 09:10 AM 4/15/2009 -0700, Aahz wrote:
For the benefit of us bystanders, could you summarize your vote at this
point? Given the PEP's intended goals, if you do not oppose the PEP, are
there any changes you think should be made?
I'm +1 on Martin's original version of the PEP, subject to the p
At 06:15 PM 4/15/2009 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The much more common use case is that of wanting to have a base package
installation which optional add-ons that live in the same logical
package namespace.
Please see the large number of Zope and PEAK distributions on PyPI as
minimal examples
At 04:18 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> .pth files are why I can't easily use GNU stow with easy_install.
> If installing a Python package involved writing new files into the
> filesystem, but did not require reading, updating, and re-writing any
> extant
At 04:42 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If you always use --single-version-externally-managed with easy_install,
>> it will stop editing .pth files on installation.
>
> It's --multi-version (-m) that does that.
> --single-version-externally-managed is a "setup.py install" option.
>
At 12:04 PM 5/10/2009 -0600, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
The thing that prevents this from working with setuptools is that
setuptools creates a file named easy_install.pth during the "python
./ setup.py install --prefix=foo" if you build two different Python
packages this way, they will each cr
At 04:42 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If you always use --single-version-externally-managed with easy_install,
>> it will stop editing .pth files on installation.
>
> It's --multi-version (-m) that does that.
> --single-version-externally-managed is a "setup.py install" option.
>
At 11:25 PM 9/9/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
That's one of the pain points of the current distutils capability:
there's no standard-library way to extract that information.
If you're talking about setup.cfg (and all the other distutils .cfg
files), all you need to do is create a Distribution
At 08:14 AM 9/12/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Specifically, I want to programmatically access the metadata that is
held in the arguments to the âdistutils.setup()â call. Without,
as you say, executing any Distutils command. I am not aware of any
âdistutilsâ public functions that can do
18 matches
Mail list logo
