Mailman 3 July 2007 - Distutils-SIG

setuptools --no-dependencies option needed?
by Rob Cakebread July 3, 2007

July 3, 2007

Hello, I'm wondering if a --no-dependencies option would be useful. In Gentoo we edit every setup.py file that has install_requires, setup_requires, or extra_requires and remove that with sed or a patch because our package manager takes care of installing all dependencies and because users may already have packages installed previously without setuptools (in python 2.4). We've found that can cause problems[1] and are considering using --single-version-externally-managed, but ideally we'd like to use the full features of setuptools (without losing the ability to install multiple versions, require-ing specific versions etc.). Would an option similar to --single-version-externally-managed that simply doesn't check for installed dependencies and does not try to download and install any dependencies be possible? Rob [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183977

2 5

Missing options for setuptools develop
by Jamie Kirkpatrick July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Couple of things. Currently there is no way to pass custom options through setuptools "develop" to distutils build_ext. What this means in practice is that you cannot do the following things: • pass the --debug flag to build_ext so as to have your module build against debug libraries. • pass any of the SWIG options through. • I'm sure there are other limitations. Because of this I ended up abandoning the swig functionality of distutils and running that as a pre distuils phase of my build scripts - it would be better If I could use it through distutils though. The show stopper is the fact I can't build against debug libraries - this means I cannot mix the --debug type builds and the develop functionality, something that seems like a logical thing to do. Is there any chance that someone could find a way to allow options to be passed through to build_ext as it is run? I'm sure its just a case of adding another option to setuptools develop and then passing it through at the relevant point. If noone wants to take it on I'm happy to write a patch if we all agree its the way to go. Thanks in advance Jamie

3 3

Performance implications of having large numbers of eggs?
by Dave Peterson July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Has anyone done any investigation into the performance implications of having large numbers of eggs installed? Is there any sort of performance hit? It seems to me that having a really large path might slow down imports a bit, though I suspect this is in C code so probably not a significant problem. It also seems like there might be some startup penalties due to the overhead of setting up the path when using eggs, but this is a one-time cost during python startup, so probably not too bad either. I'm asking because we're in the process to switching our open-source Enthought Tool Suite library to a distribution of components via eggs and we're having some internal debate as to whether we need to minimize the number of eggs or not. It definitely seems nice to have smaller subsets of functionality -- from the point of being able to make things stable, managing their APIs, managing cross-component dependencies, and from the user update size viewpoint. But are we paying a performance penalty for going too small in scope with our eggs? -- Dave

4 4

Re: [Distutils] setup.py develop for extras?
by Phillip J. Eby July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

At 12:07 AM 7/2/2007 -0400, Jorge Vargas wrote: >Hi how could I trigger installing extras with develop? > >for example > >easy_install somePackage >equals >cd somePackage >python setup.py develop > >easy_install somePackage[someExtras] >equals??? You just said it. First put the package in develop mode, then run easy_install somePackage[extras].

1 0

setup.py develop for extras?
by Jorge Vargas July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Hi how could I trigger installing extras with develop? for example easy_install somePackage equals cd somePackage python setup.py develop easy_install somePackage[someExtras] equals???

1 0