At 10:25 PM 10/6/2008 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
>2008/10/6 Phillip J. Eby <pje(a)telecommunity.com>:
> > At 12:05 PM 10/6/2008 -0700, Chris Mahan wrote:
> >> Phillip,
> >> At
> >> there is no MS windows installer for python 2.6.
> >> Do you have an idea of when that might be available?
> > No, it'll likely be a while before I'm doing anything with
> 2.6. Ian Bicking
> > now has privs for the setuptools PyPI entry, so perhaps he could
> upload one.
> > (There actually isn't anything Windows-specific about it; all the .exe
> > installers that I upload are actually built on a Linux machine.)
>This is a really frustrating aspect of setuptools, that pure-Python
>packages produce version-specific installers.
Actually, that's not setuptools' fault in this case; I specifically
make the .exe's version-specific because they have different
contents. Different versions of Python include different distutils
commands, and setuptools needs to install different things. So even
though it's "pure" Python (ha!) it is still Python-version specific.
>I'm sure I've seen an
>explanation of why this is necessary somewhere before, but I can't
>recall precisely where (and I don't really have time to wade through
>all the setuptools documentation to see if it's in there - it wasn't
>obvious from reading the contents). Can anyone give me a quick pointer
>to the explanation?
Eggs contain bytecode, and bytecode is Python version-specific.
At 12:05 PM 10/6/2008 -0700, Chris Mahan wrote:
>there is no MS windows installer for python 2.6.
>Do you have an idea of when that might be available?
No, it'll likely be a while before I'm doing anything with 2.6. Ian
Bicking now has privs for the setuptools PyPI entry, so perhaps he
could upload one. (There actually isn't anything Windows-specific
about it; all the .exe installers that I upload are actually built on
a Linux machine.)
At http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools there is no MS windows installer
for python 2.6.
Do you have an idea of when that might be available?
At 07:55 PM 10/1/2008 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Phillip J. Eby <pje(a)telecommunity.com> wrote:
> > I'm -1 on all of the above. I think we need a standard for tools interop
> > (ala WSGI), not implementation tweaks for the existing tools. I also think
> > that a concrete metadata format proposal is premature at this time; we've
> > barely begun to gather -- let alone specify -- our requirements for that
> > metadata. (Essentially, only version dependencies have been discussed,
> > AFAICT.)
>What are the other important points we need to discuss at this point
>in your opinion ?
What information needs to be conveyed by a "build" tool to an
"install" tool, and vice versa.
For example, an install tool needs to know what files are
documentation, which are sample data, and what is part of the library
proper, as well as what things are scripts (and in what language
those scripts are written, e.g. Python, shell, batch, etc.). Some
install tools need to know about icons, menus, registry info, cron
jobs, etc. (These are perhaps more properly the domain of
applications than libraries, but I'm going to assume that these
things are in scope.)
The way that this information is communicated needs to be extensible,
so that optional metadata for debs and msi's and rpm's and
whathaveyou can be incorporated, without needing to modify the
standard -- especially if the APIs for reading and writing this data
are in the stdlib.
There needs to be a way for install tools to ask a source package to
"configure" itself, possibly specifying options (and a way for it to
find out what those options are, to be able to present them to the
user). Then there needs to be a way for the install tool to ask the
package to build itself with the configured options, and a standard
for how the build tool(s) communicate errors or other issues back to
the install tools.
There needs to be a way, of course, for the package to specify what
build tools it needs in order to be built, and for those to plug in
to the (again stdlib-contained) build API.
There needs to be a better API for querying C configuration and
compiler details, that's separate from the distutils "ccompiler" stuff.
Last, but not least, there needs to be a definition of core build and
install tools to be both an example/reference implementation of the
standard, and to provide the basics needed by the core.
I think I've mentioned all of these previously in the thread. I also
think that as a matter of technicalities, these things are not
difficult to achieve... but if it they are only achieved
*technically*, then the result is a failure, not a success.
In order for the *real* goal to be achieved (i.e., a flourishing
build/install system for Python), widespread participation and buy-in
is required. If the OS people or the big package people (e.g. Zope
Corp., Enthought) or the distutils aficionados are left out, then the
result won't get used.
I think the best way to ensure that nobody is left out, is to get
them to participate in the design of a standard that ensures that
*they* will be able to control their destiny, by creating their own
build plugins and/or install tools... or at least having a robust
choice of alternatives.
We need a consensus "de jure" standard (ala WSGI), rather than just
an ongoing "de facto" standard (ala distutils/setuptools), or we're
not making any substantial progress, just handing the reins over to
> >> Enforcements:
> >> - a binary distribution cannot be uploaded if a source distrbution
> >> has not been previously provided for the version
> > Note that this doesn't allow closed-source packages to be uploaded; thus it
> > would need to be a warning, rather than a requirement.
>Right. do you agree it is something useful to do ?
> >> New features:
> >> - we should be able to download the metadata of a package without
> >> downloading the package
> >> - PyPI should display the install and test dependencies in the UI
> > It could only do this for specific binaries, since dependencies can be
> > dynamic.
>What dynamic means here ? the python module to static file process or more ?
>can you provide an example ?
Dependencies can be platform-specific as well as python-version
specific. If you want ctypes, you would depend on it in python 2.4
but not in 2.5. Similarly, if on some platform a certain library is
required to implement a feature that is natively accessible on other
platforms. In these cases, you would have logic in setup.py to
detect this and choose the appropriate dependencies.
New submission from Bryan Deter <bryan.deter(a)gmail.com>:
It would be very helpful to have the ability to have setuptools route through a
proxy. This would make using it in controlled environments significantly
title: Add ability use proxies
Setuptools tracker <setuptools(a)bugs.python.org>
At 11:59 AM 10/4/2008 -0500, Brett Hoerner wrote:
>Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Yes, the missing egg is causing the problem. ez_setup.py doesn't seem
> > to use a tarball fallback (I'm not sure why). Phillip - can there
> > either be a 2.6 egg uploaded, or have ez_setup.py install the tarball
> > when the egg is missing?
>Any news on this front? 2.6 is out but virtualenv is still broken
>because it can't fallback to the tarball.
Ian uploaded the egg a couple days ago.
>Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG(a)python.org
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Yes, the missing egg is causing the problem. ez_setup.py doesn't seem
> to use a tarball fallback (I'm not sure why). Phillip - can there
> either be a 2.6 egg uploaded, or have ez_setup.py install the tarball
> when the egg is missing?
Any news on this front? 2.6 is out but virtualenv is still broken
because it can't fallback to the tarball.
I understand that --index-url is single valued, and --find-links is
multi-valued. But what's the semantic difference between them? From my
reading, it sounds like they both point to pages that contain links to
eggs (or other distributions).
What I'm really trying to do is set up my own server, with my own
collection of eggs. I want to configure easy_install (via a config file
or command line) to only look at my collection of eggs, and never the
Cheeseshop or anywhere else. Do I do this with just --index-url? Or with
--find-links, and if so, how do I disable the index?
Thanks. I searched the archives, but I couldn't find anything (these are
very common search terms!).