HI,
At the risk of repeating other (lengthy) discussions on this subject from 18
months ago...
On 1 April 2010 02:39, Jon Ribbens
> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:14:50PM +0100, Ed Stafford wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >Glad it worked for you. Although the Ubuntu team does a fine job of
>
On 01/04/2010 02:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:14:50PM +0100, Ed Stafford wrote:
Mike,
Glad it worked for you. Although the Ubuntu team does a fine job of
package management I'm still a bit hesitant to use their python packages.
It's easy enough using van
Hello,
Without trying to argue about the purity of package managers or their uses I
would say that the reality is that there are some issues with dependable
python packages supplied for various distros. Because of that I always find
it easier to manage the necessary packages myself, that's all I w
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:51:31AM +0100, John Pinner wrote:
> I strongly advise not using easy_install, it's awful.
>
>Yes, because it's trying to solve the problems of package management on
>systems without a'proper' package manager, it compromises those systems
>with one.
Wel
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:59:20AM +0100, Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> On 01/04/2010 02:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> I strongly advise not using easy_install, it's awful.
>
> Living up to your domain name, I see.
Someone else has equivocal.co.uk I'm afraid :-p
> I might have preferred the gentler 'has
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM, John Pinner wrote:
>
> The issue with using the Python utils is that they do not play with the
> distibution's package management. For example, they do not cooperate over
> dependencies, nor provide a clean uninstall. No self-respecting sysadmin
> would dream of u
