Distutils-SIG May 2010

distutils-sig@python.org

46 participants
72 discussions

by Greg Ward

Hi all -- at long last, I have fixed two problems that a couple people noticed a while ago: * I folded in Amos Latteier's NT patches almost verbatim -- just changed an `os.path.sep == "/"' to `os.name == "posix"' and added some comments bitching about the inadequacy of the current library installation model (I think this is Python's fault, but for now Distutils is slavishly aping the situation in Python 1.5.x) * I fixed the problem whereby running "setup.py install" without doing anything else caused a crash (because 'build' hadn't yet been run). Now, the 'install' command automatically runs 'build' before doing anything; to make this bearable, I added a 'have_run' dictionary to the Distribution class to keep track of which commands have been run. So now not only are command classes singletons, but their 'run' method can only be invoked once -- both restrictions enforced by Distribution. The code is checked into CVS, or you can download a snapshot at http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/distutils-19990607.tar.gz Hope someone (Amos?) can try the new version under NT. Any takers for Mac OS? BTW, all parties involved in the Great "Where Do We Install Stuff?" Debate should take a good, hard look at the 'set_final_options()' method of the Install class in distutils/install.py; this is where all the policy decisions about where to install files are made. Currently it apes the Python 1.5 situation as closely as I could figure it out. Obviously, this is subject to change -- I just don't know to *what* it will change! Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913

3 years, 4 months

Package versioning

by Timothy Docker

Hi all, I've been aware that the distutils sig has been simmerring away, but until recently it has not been directly relevant to what I do. I like the look of the proposed api, but have one question. Will this support an installed system that has multiple versions of the same package installed simultaneously? If not, then this would seem to be a significant limitation, especially when dependencies between packages are considered. Assuming it does, then how will this be achieved? I am presently managing this with a messy arrangement of symlinks. A package is installed with its version number in it's name, and a separate directory is created for an application with links from the unversioned package name to the versioned one. Then I just set the pythonpath to this directory. A sample of what the directory looks like is shown below. I'm sure there is a better solution that this, and I'm not sure that this would work under windows anyway (does windows have symlinks?). So, has this SIG considered such versioning issues yet? Cheers, Tim -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Docker timd(a)macquarie.com.au Quantative Applications Division Macquarie Bank -------------------------------------------------------------- qad16:qad $ ls -l lib/python/ total 110 drwxr-xr-x 2 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:23 1.1 -r--r----- 1 root mts 45172 Sep 1 1998 cdrmodule_0_7_1.so drwxr-xr-x 2 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 chart_1_1 drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 Fnorb_0_7_1 dr-xr-x--- 3 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:21 Fnorb_0_8 drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 1536 Mar 3 12:45 mts_1_1 dr-xr-x--- 7 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:22 OpenGL_1_5_1 dr-xr-x--- 2 mts mts 1024 Nov 11 11:23 PIL_0_3 drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 Pmw_0_7 dr-xr-x--- 2 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:21 v3d_1_1 qad16:qad $ ls -l lib/python/1.1 total 30 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 29 Apr 10 10:43 _glumodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_glumodule.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 30 Apr 10 10:43 _glutmodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_glutmodule.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 22 Apr 10 10:43 _imaging.so -> ../PIL_0_3/_imaging.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 36 Apr 10 10:43 _opengl_nummodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_opengl_nummodule.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 27 Apr 10 10:43 _tkinter.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_tkinter.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 21 Apr 10 10:43 cdrmodule.so -> ../cdrmodule_0_7_1.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 12 Apr 10 10:43 chart -> ../chart_1_1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 12 Apr 10 10:43 Fnorb -> ../Fnorb_0_8 lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 12 Apr 10 10:43 mts -> ../mts_1_1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 15 Apr 10 10:43 OpenGL -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 33 Apr 10 10:43 opengltrmodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/opengltrmodule.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 33 Apr 10 10:43 openglutil_num.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/openglutil_num.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 10 Apr 10 10:43 PIL -> ../PIL_0_3 lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 10 Apr 10 10:43 Pmw -> ../Pmw_0_7 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 10 Apr 10 10:43 v3d -> ../v3d_1_1

3 years, 4 months

[Distutils-sig] distutils charter and interscript

by John Skaller

3 years, 4 months

[buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

by Chris Withers

Hi All, I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches: reinout-scripts gary-4-include-site-packages What more needs to happen for these to get merged to trunk and a release made? cheers, Chris

9 years, 5 months

[buildout] extending a .cfg supplied by another package

by Chris Withers

Hi All, I'd like to be able to do: [buildout] extends=some.package:aconfig.cfg ...kinda like you can with templates in BFG, which I believe uses pkg_tools to do the hard work. What're the chances of that happening? cheers, Chris

11 years, 1 month

Beta release of zc.buildout 1.5.0

by Gary Poster

I have made a beta release of zc.buildout 1.5.0. Among other changes, this release includes the ability to use zc.buildout with a system Python, if you use the new z3c.recipe.scripts instead of zc.recipe.egg for generating scripts. Changelog: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.buildout/1.5.0b1#b1-2010-04-29 In my experience, working with a system ("non-clean") Python can be fragile in many ways. However, this release addresses the problems I have encountered so far. Your feedback is welcome. I hope to make a final release sometime next week. Gary

11 years, 1 month

Bootstrap script for package management tool in Python 2.7 (Was: Re: [Python-Dev] At least one package management tool for 2.7)

by anatoly techtonik

So, there won't be any package management tool shipped with Python 2.7 and users will have to download and install `setuptools` manually as before: "search" -> "download" -> "unzip" -> "cmd" -> "cd" -> "python setup.py install" Therefore I still propose shipping bootstrap package that instruct user how to download and install an actual package management tool when users tries to use it. So far I know only one stable tool - `easy_install` - a part of `setuptools` package. The required behavior for very basic user friendliness: 1. user installs Python 2.7 2. user issues `python -m easy_install something` 3. user gets message 'easy_install' tool is not installed on this system. To make it available, download and install `setuptools` package from http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools/ 4. the screen is paused before exit (for windows systems) Other design notes: 1. if package tries to import `easy_install` module used for bootstrap, it gets the same ImportException as if there were no `easy_install` at all 2. bootstrap module is overwritten by actual package when users installs it So, do we need a PEP for that? How else can I know if consensus is reached? Anybody is willing to elaborate on implementation? P.S. Please be careful to reply to relevant lists -- anatoly t. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/3/29 anatoly techtonik <techtonik(a)gmail.com>: > [..] >> It is really hard to follow. You should at least change subjects when >> switching topic. > > I was talking about the work going on and the decisions taken lately. > > I never change topics of threads mails when there's less than 100 mails, > because I find it way more confusing :) > >> >> So, what is the verdict? Will there be a package management tool or >> bootstrap package for it shipped with Python 2.7 or not? > > As I said in the mail you've quoted, all improvements are made in > Distutils2. So the answer is no. > Python 2.7b1 is due in less than a week anyways, so any new > development on this topic will happen after. > > Basically Python 2.7 == Python 2.6 in term of packaging. > > Regards > Tarek > > -- > Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org >

11 years, 2 months

Re: [Distutils] [issue1054967] bdist_deb - Debian packager

by Andrew Straw

I am moving the venue for this discussion on stdeb to the distutils-sig (from http://bugs.python.org/issue1054967 ). I think this is better discussed there. On 4/29/10 10:16 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: > Éric Araujo<merwok(a)netwok.org> added the comment: > > Andrew, I am uncomfortable with stdeb. (Trying to express respectful > constructive critique, not just picking on your project.) The version in > Debian testing, 0.5.1-1, still requires setuptools (actually only > pkg_resources, which is split into another package in Debian, for space > or politic reasons). I see, thanks for pointing this out. I thought pkg_resources was in the stdlib (or on that track). I will investigate. > The py2dsc script seems to be obsoleted by the > to-be “debian” command. Can you refer me to the source code and/or documentation for that command? I was not previously aware of it. > The pypi-install script seems dangerous to me, > because downloading unverified software and putting it into the system > seems a rather bad idead (a.k.a. “sudo ./setup.py install considered > harmful”). > Yes, some might consider it dangerous, although it does of course require root privileges before installing anything system-wide (and only builds the .deb file with user privileges). Nevertheless, it is a useful tool and safer than "sudo python ./setup.py install" because one can always do "sudo dpkg --purge python-some-package" to remove that package again. > python-debian provides useful support code for generating and reading > debian formats. A quick read show the code would benefit from some 2.6 > modernizing (i.e. gain in simplicity and readability by using modern > idioms and stdlib functions). Yes, I'm not particularly proud of the code in stdeb -- please feel free to hack away. Any and all improvements accepted, preferably in bite-sized commits to a fork on github. > Would using this package in stdeb / > distutils2.command.debian instead of shelling out bring anything? > (Ah, I gather this is the debian command you refer to above?) Not knowing that command, I'm not sure what would be gained. If the command depends on debhelper (by shelling out to dh_make), it would remove that dependency. It also brings all the options described in the README.rst file. -Andrew

11 years, 3 months

Having a Python package install itself under a different name

by cool-RR

Hello all! I want to ask you a question regarding something I want to do with my app. The reason I'm asking here is because I understand that Distribute somehow installs itself as "setuptools". (I've never looked into the details of it.) And I want something similar, so maybe you can advise me how to do it. I'm developing a package called `garlicsim`. The package is intended for Python 2.X, but I am also offerring Python 3 support on a different fork called `garlicsim_py3`.(1) So both of these packages live side by side on PyPI, and Python 3 users install `garlicsim_py3`, and Python 2 users install `garlicsim`. The problem is: When third party modules want to use garlicsim, they should have one package name to refer to, not two. Sure, they can do something like this: try: import garlicsim except ImportError: import garlicsim_py3 as garlicsim But I would prefer not to make the developers of these modules do this. Is there a way that `garlicsim_py3` will install itself under the alias `garlicsim`? What I want is for a Python 3 user to be able to `import garlicsim` and refer to the module all the time as `garlicsim`, but that it will really be `garlicsim_py3`. ---------- (1) I've reached the decision to support Python 3 on a fork instead of in the same code base; It's important for me that the code base will be clean, and I would really not want to introduce compatibilty hacks. Thanks, Ram Rachum.

11 years, 3 months

Re: [Distutils] pip vs easy_install vs distutils2

by Tarek Ziadé

2010/5/29 P.J. Eby <pje(a)telecommunity.com>: > At 01:13 AM 5/29/2010 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >> The problem I have with this approach is that we need to manage >> somewhere at PyPI a list of potential installers, >> and maybe deal with upgrades and replacements. Plus, I am not sure >> that a user will really understand what to >> do when he's asked to chose an installer. Sounds like something we >> should only ask to power users, and >> people that know what they are doing with p7g. So a bootstrap script >> is useless for them. > > Actually, the way it would (presumably) work would be just a script like > Guido's that downloads a source archive from PyPI and runs setup.py install. > So, it's not really a matter of "choosing" an installer -- it'd just be, > "download and install a package from source". > > If the package itself needs one of those other things in order to build > itself or install dependencies, then the next stage of bootstrap is its > problem (e.g. via ez_setup), not the stdlib's. > > So, I don't see the "power users only" objection making sense, at least if > we drop back to what I believe was Guido's original proposal for a bootstrap > script a few years ago. I was not thinking about this proposal. If this what Guido proposed at the summit, then I misunderstood. I was thiking about a bootstrap process on the end-user side, to set up an installer once for all, on a fresh Python. The problem with the feature you describe (bootstrap embed in the archive itself) is that we imply that the packager chooses himself an installer and forces the end-user to use it when he installs the software. This means that the end user might end up with several installers installed for the same Python. It also implies that the developer provides a smart setup.py script that embeds that bootstrap, and runs some code. I think separating the concerns and letting the end user pick/use explicitly *one* installer globally is better because several installers won't compete on the target system (even if we supposely want them all to be compatible in the future). Of course, this is only true for source distributions. It will also allow distributions to be "dumb" envelopes with static metadata that are the same all the time, no matter which tool created them, and eventually remove setup.py in favor of statically described metadata using PEP 345. Today, for instance, if an installer wants to install a distribution based on setuptools, it has to run the "egg_info" command to extract the metadata, on the target system. Being able to get those metadata without running any code would be better. For instance, installers could list all dependencies for a project by querying PyPI with zero download/execution. (thanks to PEP 345 environment markers) What would make more sense I think, would be to have all installers an identical archive for a given project, that doesn't need more code to be run to get all the metadata. So at the end, the end user would chose an installer that is compatible with these archive, and know how to install them. In other words, have ez_setup for example, run once for all at the Python level, and be THE installer. Or run a pip_setup or whatever. Regards, Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

11 years, 3 months

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Distutils-SIG May 2010