Mailman 3 November 2017 - Distutils-SIG

Sample setup.py for Numeric Python
by Greg Ward April 29, 2018

April 29, 2018

Hi again -- [cc'd to Paul Dubois: you said you weren't following the distutils sig anymore, but this directly concerns NumPy and I'd like to get your input!] here's that sample setup.py for NumPy. See below for discussion (and questions!). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ #!/usr/bin/env python # Setup script example for building the Numeric extension to Python. # This does sucessfully compile all the .dlls. Nothing happens # with the .py files currently. # Move this file to the Numerical directory of the LLNL numpy # distribution and run as: # python numpysetup.py --verbose build_ext # # created 1999/08 Perry Stoll __rcsid__ = "$Id: numpysetup.py,v 1.1 1999/09/12 20:42:48 gward Exp $" from distutils.core import setup setup (name = "numerical", version = "0.01", description = "Numerical Extension to Python", url = "http://www.python.org/sigs/matrix-sig/", ext_modules = [ ( '_numpy', { 'sources' : [ 'Src/_numpymodule.c', 'Src/arrayobject.c', 'Src/ufuncobject.c' ], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file' : 'Src/numpy.def' } ), ( 'multiarray', { 'sources' : ['Src/multiarraymodule.c'], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file': 'Src/multiarray.def' } ), ( 'umath', { 'sources': ['Src/umathmodule.c'], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file' : 'Src/umath.def' } ), ( 'fftpack', { 'sources': ['Src/fftpackmodule.c', 'Src/fftpack.c'], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file' : 'Src/fftpack.def' } ), ( 'lapack_lite', { 'sources' : [ 'Src/lapack_litemodule.c', 'Src/dlapack_lite.c', 'Src/zlapack_lite.c', 'Src/blas_lite.c', 'Src/f2c_lite.c' ], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file' : 'Src/lapack_lite.def' } ), ( 'ranlib', { 'sources': ['Src/ranlibmodule.c', 'Src/ranlib.c', 'Src/com.c', 'Src/linpack.c', ], 'include_dirs' : ['./Include'], 'def_file' : 'Src/ranlib.def' } ), ] ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First, what d'you think? Too clunky and verbose? Too much information for each extension? I kind of think so, but I'm not sure how to reduce it elegantly. Right now, the internal data structures needed to compile a module are pretty obviously exposed: is this a good thing? Or should there be some more compact form for setup.py that will be expanded later into the full glory we see above? I've already made one small step towards reducing the amount of cruft by factoring 'include_dirs' out and supplying it directly as a parameter to 'setup()'. (But that needs code not in the CVS archive yet, so I've left the sample setup.py the same for now.) The next thing I'd like to do is get that damn "def_file" out of there. To support it in MSVCCompiler, there's already an ugly hack that unnecessarily affects both the UnixCCompiler and CCompiler classes, and I want to get rid of that. (I refer to passing the 'build_info' dictionary into the compiler classes, if you're familiar with the code -- that dictionary is part of the Distutils extension-building system, and should not propagate into the more general compiler classes.) But I don't want to give these weird "def file" things standing on the order of source files, object files, libraries, etc., because they seem to me to be a bizarre artifact of one particular compiler, rather than something present in a wide range of C/C++ compilers. Based on the NumPy model, it seems like there's a not-too-kludgy way to handle this problem. Namely: if building extension "foo": if file "foo.def" found in same directory as "foo.c" add "/def:foo.def" to MSVC command line this will of course require some platform-specific code in the build_ext command class, but I figured that was coming eventually, so why put it off? ;-) To make this hack work with NumPy, one change would be necessary: rename Src/numpy.def to Src/_numpy.def to match Src/_numpy.c, which implements the _numpy module. Would this be too much to ask of NumPy? (Paul?) What about other module distributions that support MSVC++ and thus ship with "def" files? Could they be made to accomodate this scheme? Thanks for your feedback -- 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

4 5

Can now compile simple extensions
by Greg Ward April 29, 2018

April 29, 2018

Hi all -- at long last, I found the time to hack in the ability to compile extension modules to the Distutils. Mainly, this meant adding a 'build_ext' command which uses a CCompiler instance for all its dirty work. I also had to add a few methods to CCompiler (and, of course, UnixCCompiler) to make this work. And I added a new module, 'spawn', which takes care of running sub-programs more efficiently and robustly (no shell involved) than os.system. That's needed, obviously, so we can run the compiler! If you're in the mood for grubbing over raw source code, then get the latest from CVS or download a current snapshot. See http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/implementation.html for a link to the code snapshot. I'm still waiting for more subclasses of CCompiler to appear. At the very least, we're going to need MSVCCompiler to build extensions on Windows. Any takers? Also, someone who knows the Mac, and how to run compilers programmatically there, will have to figure out how to write a Mac-specific concrete CCompiler subclass. The spawn module also needs a bit of work to be portable. I suspect that _win32_spawn() (the intended analog to my _posix_spawn()) will be easy to implement, if it even needs to go in a separate function at all. It looks from the Python Library documentation for 1.5.2 that the os.spawnv() function is all we need, but it's a bit hard to figure out just what's needed. Windows wizards, please take a look at the 'spawn()' function and see if you can make it work on Windows. As for actually compiling extensions: well, if you can figure out the build_ext command, go ahead and give it a whirl. It's a bit cryptic right now, since there's no documentation and no example setup.py. (I have a working example at home, but it's not available online.) If you feel up to it, though, see if you can read the code and figure out what's going on. I'm just hoping *I'll* be able to figure out what's going on when I get back from the O'Reilly conference next week... ;-) Enjoy -- 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

2 1

Two fixes (at last)
by Greg Ward April 29, 2018

April 29, 2018

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

2 1

Package versioning
by Timothy Docker April 29, 2018

April 29, 2018

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 2

[Distutils-sig] distutils charter and interscript
by John Skaller April 29, 2018

April 29, 2018

3 2

ANNOUNCE: Sunsetting of uploading to the legacy PyPI/TestPyPI
by Donald Stufft April 17, 2018

April 17, 2018

Hello All! As most people are aware, there has been an effort under way to rewrite PyPI in order to solve a lot of long standing problems. For those who aren't aware, that is currently available at https://pypi.org/ and it uses the same database that "Legacy" PyPI does, so the two are essentially just different views over the same data. For a awhile now, Python, setuptools, and twine have all defaulted to using this new code base for uploading artifacts to PyPI. Now that we've gotten some testing of that code base, the infrastructure team and myself feel comfortable directing everyone to using the new endpoint and we're planning on shutting down uploads to Legacy PyPI. If you're using the latest versions of Python, setuptools, or twine and you have not put an explicit URL in your ~/.pypirc file, then there's nothing you should need to do. If you are not, then you should ideally upgrade to the latest version of whatever tool you're using to upload (the preferred tool is twine) and edit your ~/.pypirc so that it removes any explicit mention of an URL. Thus it should look something like: [distutils] index-servers = pypi [pypi] username:yourusername password:yourpassword If for some reason you're not able to update to the newest version of your upload tool, then you can configure it to upload to the new code base by switching the URL to use https://upload.pypi.org/legacy/ instead of https://pypi.python.org/pypi. Thus your ~/.pypirc would then become: [distutils] index-servers = pypi [pypi] repository:https://upload.pypi.org/legacy/ username:yourusername password:yourpassword For those of you who are using TestPyPI, that will also be affected, and the required URL for the new upload endpoint for TestPyPI is https://test.pypi.org/legacy/. We plan to disable uploads to legacy PyPI on July 3rd, 2017 so any configuration change will need to be made before that date. In addition, we plan to have a "brownout" on June 29th where we will shut the legacy endpoint down for that day. For TestPyPI the change to disable uploads to legacy will be made in the next couple of days, likely this weekend. As part of the error message that users will get when attempting to upload to legacy PyPI, we will include a link to a page that details how to ensure that they are using the new code base and not the legacy code base. Thanks everyone! — Donald Stufft

9 29

Announcement: Pip 10 is coming, and will move all internal APIs
by Paul Moore April 15, 2018

April 15, 2018

We're in the process of starting to plan for a release of pip (the long-awaited pip 10). We're likely still a month or two away from a release, but now is the time for people to start ensuring that everything works for them. One key change in the new version will be that all of the internal APIs of pip will no longer be available, so any code that currently calls functions in the "pip" namespace will break. Calling pip's internal APIs has never been supported, and always carried a risk of such breakage, so projects doing so should, in theory, be prepared for such things. However, reality is not always that simple, and we are aware that people will need time to deal with the implications. Just in case it's not clear, simply finding where the internal APIs have moved to and calling them under the new names is *not* what people should do. We can't stop people calling the internal APIs, obviously, but the idea of this change is to give people the incentive to find a supported approach, not just to annoy people who are doing things we don't want them to ;-) So please - if you're calling pip's internals in your code, take the opportunity *now* to check out the in-development version of pip, and ensure your project will still work when pip 10 is released. And many thanks to anyone else who helps by testing out the new version, as well :-) Thanks, Paul

12 33

Policy for deleting packages, releases, and artifacts
by Jimmy Jia Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Hi everyone, This is moved over from https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/112. Currently, PyPI has no limitations around deleting packages, releases, or artifacts. This can be problematic for users, as user builds can break in an unsolicited manner if a dependency is removed from PyPI. In the Node ecosystem, a similar lack of limitations there caused significant problems about a year and a half ago, when a widely-used package was deleted following a dispute: http://blog.npmjs.org/post/141577284765/kik-left-pad-and-npm, http://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpublish-policy. At the time, the scope of the impact was characterized as "breaking the world". To resolve this, npm adopted a policy where package deletions (there's no distinction between a release and an artifact there) could only be done for the first 24 hours after a release was published. Deletions after the 24 hour mark require contacting npm support, and are contingent on the absence of dependents for the deleted release. Of course, npm is a venture-backed for-profit enterprise that has a paid support team – that's not the case here, so the "support" half of the solution above doesn't make sense here. However, as a starting point, it might still be a good idea to restrict package deletion after that 24-hour window. At least, in the examples given in the links above, the deletion of old packages is strictly a nice-to-have for the package maintainers, balanced against potentially breaking impacts for users. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Thanks, Jimmy Jia

1 1

Outstanding questions for PEP 541: Package Index Name Retention
by Sumana Harihareswara Dec. 7, 2017

Dec. 7, 2017

While getting up to speed on Warehouse I saw how many package transfer requests are waiting for PEP 541[0] to be accepted, so I thought it might be helpful to round up what I see as the outstanding questions. 1) Usage criteria for abandoned projects. > The tricky part there is that "being used" is a tough concept to > define. Over what time period? What amount of downloading counts as > "used"?-- Chris Rose[1] Perhaps a month? suggests Matthias Bussonnier.[2] The ensuing discussion includes thoughts on locking old versions of the project[3]; as I see it, that's a potential feature request for Warehouse, but not something to build into this PEP. (Similarly, Nick Timkovich's idea of "salting" hot-button names on PyPI so it isn't possible to register projects like "android"[4] is a feature idea I like but I think this PEP does not need to wait for it.) 2) A few copyedits from Chris Barker.[5] 3) "How would I, for example, start the process of flagging a project as abandoned?" -- Nick Timkovich[6] It seems to me that the PEP's wording in "Removal of an abandoned project" says we'll allow transfer of abandoned projects but will not remove them only for being abandoned. However, the PEP currently doesn't include a "where to file a ticket" line in that section (as it does in "Invalid projects"). Also, if there's some other reason we should be willing to remove abandoned projects even without a transfer, e.g., the project has a critical security flaw, we should say that somewhere in this PEP or in a different policy document. There is one item Łukasz mentioned this in the "I decided to not otherwise touch on:" list regarding the revision on January 14th[7] that I think deserves one more chance for discussion. :) A few people brought up making the reachability criteria and instructions crisper. > Regarding reachability: contact attempts should also include the > relevant project's issue tracker if attempts at private contact have > failed. > > This step is important as it allows a project's *user* community to > respond, even if the person that actually pushes the buttons to > upload new releases to PyPI is out of contact for some reason. -- Nick Coghlan[8] Nick Timkovich also suggested some specific instructions[9] that would help set expectations to, among other things, reassure maintainers about the length of offline vacations they can take without worrying about having their packages usurped. :) I'm totally fine with folks saying to me: no, these are all addressed, or not important enough to slow adoption of this PEP. In which case, yay, I hope Donald can accept it and we can start processing the backlog. [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0541/ [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030017.html [2] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030020.html [3] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030034.html [4] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030006.html [5] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-September/031517.html [6] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030005.html [7] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030009.html [8] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030008.html [9] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-January/030005.html -- Sumana Harihareswara Changeset Consulting https://changeset.nyc

3 2

Caching entry points - performance
by Thomas Kluyver Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

To pick up the caching discussion again, I've started to experiment with a couple of different caching techniques. The headline results: a cold-start scan of entry points goes from about 4.5 seconds with no caching, to 0.45 seconds with caching. There's only a small difference (for me) between having a cache file per sys.path directory and a single per-user cache file. I've posted lots more details here: https://github.com/takluyver/entrypoints/issues/16 I keep my sys.path quite short, and the difference between the two approaches presumably increases the more sys.path entries you have. If anyone has time to test the different techniques, I'd be interested to know what your results look like. I've put (Linux) instructions on the same issue. If you'd like to try with a different format or caching mechanism, feel free to add some scripts and see how they compare. I haven't yet tried to integrate either technique into the entrypoints module. Thomas

2 1