Hi all --
at long last, I have fixed two problems that a couple people noticed a
* 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
Hope someone (Amos?) can try the new version under NT. Any takers for
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
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
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
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?
Tim Docker timd(a)macquarie.com.au
Quantative Applications Division
qad16:qad $ ls -l lib/python/
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
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
I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:
What more needs to happen for these to get merged to trunk and a release
I'd like to be able to do:
...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?
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.
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.
I'm trying to make a buildbot for zc.buildout on various windows
The problem is that bin/buildout acts weird when it's run by the
OTOH, it's fine when running it manually (same credentials):
zc.buildout version 1.5.0dev;
Generated script 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\buildout'.
Generated script 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\test'.
Generated script 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\oltest'.
Generated script 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\buildout'.
Generated script 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\zope-testrunner'.
Generated interpreter 'C:\\buildslave\\zc_buildout_dev_py_254_win32\\build\\bin\\py'.
Does anyone know why this could happen?
Adam GROSZER mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Quote of the day:
We can't all be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.
- Will Rogers
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
"search" -> "download" -> "unzip" -> "cmd" -> "cd" -> "python
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
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
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.
> Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
At 09:59 AM 6/30/2010 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>protobuf project have problems with installing via easy_install. One
>part of problem is that the project provides versioned archives
>unrelated to Python that `easy_install` threats as Python packages.
>Corresponding package with the same version number was uploaded to
>PyPI archive, but the easy_install still downloads archive from Google
>Code. Why? I though easy_install should prefer PyPI package.
It prefers newer packages, or, if the versions are the same, it
prefers the shortest download URL. In this case, the Google Code url
>Is it possible to raise the priority of PyPI mirror for protobuf
No. If (e.g.)
and http://protobuf.googlecode.com/files/protobuf-2.3.0.tar.gz aren't
equivalent files, they should not be named the same thing --
especially since this practice can confuse humans as well as easy_install.
On a practical level, if it's too late for the Python project to use
a different name, I would suggest changing the PyPI homepage links
(for current and past releases) to point to a Python-specific project
page, that does not contain links to download the generic, non-Python
package. This will keep easy_install from considering them as
candidates for downloading.
(Note: you will have to go into PyPI's administration interface and
manually change the home page link for *all past versions* as well,
due to the way the /simple index works.)
protobuf project have problems with installing via easy_install. One
part of problem is that the project provides versioned archives
unrelated to Python that `easy_install` threats as Python packages.
Corresponding package with the same version number was uploaded to
PyPI archive, but the easy_install still downloads archive from Google
Code. Why? I though easy_install should prefer PyPI package. Seems
like a bug. Is it possible to raise the priority of PyPI mirror for
protobuf project somehow?