Mailman 3 October 2009 - Distutils-SIG

Distribute 0.7.x first sprint
by Tarek Ziadé 18 Oct '09

18 Oct '09

Hey While we are working at fixing bugs in 0.6.x, I would like to organize a first online coding sprint for the 0.7.x series, goals: - finalize the first splitting version - define a more detailed roadmap for each splitted package - build a better test environment (see if we can set up a buildbot) possible times: - Sunday October 18th - 6 pm. GMT+2 - Tuesday October 20th - 7 pm. GMT+2 - Wenesday October 21th - 7 pm. GMT+2 - Friday October 23th - 7 pm. GMT+2 If you want to join, add your name here: http://doodle.com/bfgv3yi3pi48buuv Thanks -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org | オープンソースはすごい! | 开源传万世，因有你参与

1 1

setuptools 0.6c10 delayed until Monday
by P.J. Eby 17 Oct '09

17 Oct '09

After giving it some thought, I've decided to hold off on pushing out the 0.6c10 release until Monday morning, since it's likely that some people have scripts or build processes that run off of ez_setup SVN or the latest PyPI version of setuptools... and who aren't aware the release is coming and might be surprised by it. It would therefore probably not be a good idea to push this out on a Friday. Also, this will give those who are using Distribute and do *not* wish to use this release, a chance to upgrade to the latest version of Distribute first. (Which, if I understand correctly, includes code to prevent accidental re-installation of setuptools.)

2 2

making windows exe file on linux
by james27 17 Oct '09

17 Oct '09

hello im new to cx_freeze . and also new to python. i want to make windows exe executable file on linux. i was searched much of time.but i couldn't found solution. is it possible to make windows exe file by use cx_freeze on linux? or there is some other solution is exist? if anyone can help ,much appreciate. thanks in advance. paul. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/making-windows-exe-file-on-linux-tp25937633p25937633.… Sent from the Python - distutils-sig mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Proposal for Distribute 0.7
by P.J. Eby 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

At 02:32 PM 10/15/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >That would make us happy, because we would be able to work and >continue if you are not available sometimes without the feeling >that we are locked, and that would give you the manpower you miss to >develop some of your idea. So... you've explained what part of this proposal will make you happy. Where's the part that will make me happy? Generally speaking, that's how a "win-win" proposal works. There's a second issue, too. You've repeatedly smeared setuptools on Python-Dev to cover your mistakes, and you have *yet* to retract or amend any of those statements or apologize for them in any of the places where you made them -- despite numerous requests that you do so. In each case where I've made a request, I know you've received the request, because you've replied to the email or comment in which I made it. But in none of your replies have you even *acknowledged* the issue, let alone done anything about it. Instead, you've either changed the venue, the subject, or just launched a new smear. This latest "proposal" of yours is of course just another such subject and venue change, in reply to one of my more recent requests (via Reddit comment) that you do something about this outstanding issue. But if you were genuinely serious about the things you claim to be interested in, you might have paid attention to such things as my mentions that there are other people on the Distribute team who I'd seriously consider as committers on setuptools or even as a chief maintainer of the setuptools 0.6 line (if not more). In my book, the mere fact that you haven't asked me who those team members are, or offered to step down in favor of them (either privately OR publicly), tells me everything I need to know about where your real interest in this matter lies. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not blacklisting you or refusing to support you. You are no less a user of setuptools than any other, after all. To the extent that you are courteous in your requests regarding setuptools, you will get reasonably courteous responses from me, as has been the case on Python-Dev and here in the last few days. (And for that matter, all along!) But please don't bother floating any more proposals for some sort of direct collaboration or co-operation between you and I, not now, or ever again, until such time as you have shown as consistent a track record of behaving with integrity, as you've shown a *lack of* in your interactions with me. Because as of right now, I can't trust you enough to work with you. I can't trust you not to blame every mistake you make on me, and then say, "oh let's just forget about everything" when you're called on it. I can't trust you to admit when you don't know something (see our recent Catalog-SIG exchange), or to not throw my agreement to work with you back in my face the first time we disagree on something. And these things alone would be more than enough reason not to work on a software project with someone. But at this point, I can't even trust you to not immediately follow up my mere *agreement* to work with you, with a blog post like "PJE finally comes to his senses" or some such rubbish. Your political gaming behavior is a deal-breaker for me, and it's not something that any behavior you do *now* can fix. I've tried for months to give you the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of the language barrier, and maybe even the benefit of a complete lack of sensitivity or clue on your part. And, most recently, you've had no fewer than *five* extra chances from me to act with integrity, but you've chosen to showboat instead. Every. Single. Time. So, good luck with that, 'cause I'm done with it. To the rest of the Distribute team: I have absolutely no quarrel with any of you, as far as I know, and I remain open to an (off-list) discussion on any topics or win-win proposals you'd like to discuss. P.S. Tarek: if your next move is to issue a series of halfhearted, backhanded retractions so you can whine that you did what I asked and I still won't work with you, please don't bother. It's not really credible evidence of your integrity at this point, so I'm done with asking you for anything. IOW, this is *not* a sixth request for a retraction, it's the termination of my many, many attempts to deal with you in good faith. P.P.S. Everyone else: please don't clog the SIG mailing list with further discussion on this topic. If you feel the need to flame me for some reason, please show more consideration to the group than Tarek has, by sending it to me in private, or go rant on your blog or twitter if your need for attention is too great. In return, I will guarantee this to be my last mailing list post on this subject. (I guarantee that I'm at *least* as tired of it as you are.) Thanks in advance.

6 14

Re: [Distutils] [venv] Re: two questions about virtualenv
by ssteinerX＠gmail.com 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote: > Jannis Leidel <jannis(a)leidel.info> writes: > >> That'd be very much appreciated, I'm sure the experience of the >> distribute people would be helpful, too. > > I'm not sure I quite approve of their approach, since it makes > installing Distribute under Python 3 take a very long time - which, > as a > result, currently makes creating a virtualenv under Python 3 take a > very > long time as well. Someone was complaining to me about that just > earlier this week. Doesn't that also mean that the Python 3 version of Distribute is generated live on the installation system? That doesn't seem right because that leaves the possibility that the code generated by 2to3 is different from the code that passed the (hypothetical, at this point) tests before the distribution was created. I'm going to cross-post this to the distutils list as well. If the idea is to stabilize Distribute, get some tests in place, etc. then this method of distribution (running 2to3 in situ, as it were) is not the correct way to do it from a "shipping the tested product" perspective. S

4 6

small distribute improvement
by Neal Becker 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

I think it is confusing that easy_install blah doesn't do anything, and doesn't provide any clue, if it was to do an update. You need to say easy_install -U blah There are a few choices here. One might be that easy_install blah could notify you that an update is available. Personally, my preference would be to just do the update. Or, at least offer to if run interactively.

4 3

distribute 0.6.6 is out
by Reinout van Rees 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

Tarek is off to bed, so I'll throw out a quick mail to bring you all the happy tiding that distribute 0.6.6 is out! So get ready for your "easy_install -U distribute". Buildout users can grab http://python-distribute.org/bootstrap.py and get their bin/buildout to use this stable 0.6.6. Works like a charm. (Note: tiny update-time bug in 0.6.5, so thatâs why thereâs a 0.6.6) Reinout -- Reinout van Rees - reinout(a)vanrees.org - http://reinout.vanrees.org Software developer at http://www.thehealthagency.com "Military engineers build missiles. Civil engineers build targets"

2 1

Distribute docs at packages.python.org?
by John Gabriele 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

Was just looking at the Distribute docs at http://packages.python.org/distribute/index.html (nicely styled, btw). Are there any other projects at http://packages.python.org/ (note, that page actually doesn't even load)? What is the purpose of packages.python.org , and how does one get their project listed there? Btw, regarding the Distribute docs there, thanks for the Roadmap! ---John

2 1

distribute equivalent of "setup.py develop"?
by Andreas Klöckner 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

Hi there, I've recently tried distribute, and much to my dismay found that it doesn't appear to contain an equivalent of "setup.py develop". Is such a thing planned, or, even better, available now? Thanks, Andreas

2 3

Proposal for Distribute 0.7
by Tarek Ziadé 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

Phillip, I have a proposal for Distribute 0.7 : let's join forces and all work together in that tool. "All" would be the commiters of Distribute, and PJE. These people would all be in the same team with the same commiter rights, and I propose that you become the leader of that tool and guide us in its development. (but with the usual +1/-1 stuff of course) That would make us happy, because we would be able to work and continue if you are not available sometimes without the feeling that we are locked, and that would give you the manpower you miss to develop some of your idea. That would be the best thing that could happen imho for python packaging. And if you agree, and want the project name, we can all find a neutral name that everybody would like. Cheers, Tarek

1 1