Setuptools 0.6c10 release imminent; please test
I've just updated the setuptools trunk and branch with a large number of bug fixes, preparing to release 0.6c10. These fixes include fixes for all the setuptools bugs currently marked "in-progress" or "testing" on the setuptools bug tracker as of this moment, and I'd like your help in ensuring that the new version is ready for release. Major updates and fixes include: * Fix for Vista UAC errors running easy_install.exe or other "installer-looking" executables * Fix for errors launching 64-bit Windows Python * Fix for the Python 2.6.3 build_ext API change * Support for the most recent Sourceforge download link insanity * Support for SVN 1.6 * Stop crashing on certain types of HTTP error * Stop re-trying URLs that already failed retrieval once * Fixes for various dependency management problems such as looping builds, re-downloading packages already present on sys.path (but not in a registered "site" directory), and randomly preferring local -f packages over local installed packages * Prevent lots of spurious "already imported from another path" warnings (e.g. when pkg_resources is imported late) * Ensure C libraries (as opposed to extensions) are also built when doing bdist_egg * Fixed running the "test" command under Python 2.6+ (0.7a1 trunk only) Other changes: * Misc. documentation fixes * Improved Jython support * Fewer warnings under Python 2.6+ * Warn when 'packages' uses paths instead of package names (because it causes other problems, like spurious "already imported" warnings) * Stop using /usr/bin/sw_vers on Mac OS (replaced w/'platform' module calls) You can install the updated version using easy_install (or pip!), asking for setuptools==dev (for the 0.7a1 trunk) or setuptools==dev06 (for the 0.6c10 development branch). But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely. In particular, please note that these changes are NOT a merge from Distribute; upon review, many of the tracker-submitted patches used as a basis for forking were incorrect, incomplete, introduced new bugs, or were not addressing the root causes. (E.g., one of the changes I made fixes three superficially unrelated issues in the setuptools bug tracker.) Even if some of the change descriptions are the same in Distribute, many of the fixes are implemented quite differently.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:25 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely. In particular, please note that these changes are NOT a merge from Distribute; upon review, many of the tracker-submitted patches used as a basis for forking were incorrect, incomplete, introduced new bugs, or were not addressing the root causes. (E.g., one of the changes I made fixes three superficially unrelated issues in the setuptools bug tracker.) Even if some of the change descriptions are the same in Distribute, many of the fixes are implemented quite differently
Mmm, I can't let you say that, that's not true. I've read all your commit diffs, and I've recognized similar fixes we've done in Distribute. So this assertion you are making is pretty vague. But thanks anyway for this release, we will look at your fixes and backport them if required in Distribute. Tarek
On Monday,2009-10-12, at 14:25 , P.J. Eby wrote:
(E.g., one of the changes I made fixes three superficially unrelated issues in the setuptools bug tracker.)
That would be: http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue17 and http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue65 Right? What was the third? Thanks, Zooko
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:25 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely
Damn if I understand this...such a long time waiting for all these bug fixes...so little action, so much angst... Then that all that effort going into the Distribute fork, so much effort expended carefully working around so that Distribute would be a bug-fixed, drop-in replacement for the orphaned setuptools. Then suddenly out of the blue, everything is fixed in setuptools 06c10 and we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes. If the changes you made really were superior in any way, I trust that Tarek and co. are smart, and egoless enough to see that and will make those changes part of Distribute. Too little, too late, no thanks, I'll just be sticking with Distribute from now on. S
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, ssteinerX@gmail.com wrote:
we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their package includes a 'setuptools' package, and if it's on your sys.path, then installing the new version of setuptools will be a no-op. If they hadn't done that, there'd be no problem. See the Distribute documentation. In any case, the update is not intended for people who are happy to have Distribute, but the people who are unhappy about having to switch, or deal with its workarounds... or just wish the whole discussion would go away.
Then suddenly out of the blue
It may appear sudden to you, if you haven't been reading Python-Dev. There's been quite a bit of discussion about an urgent bug that Tarek introduced in Python 2.6.3. It's mainly because of that bug that I took the time to go ahead and get a bunch of other pending bugs cleaned up and checked in.
ssteinerX@gmail.com kirjoitti:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:25 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely
Damn if I understand this...such a long time waiting for all these bug fixes...so little action, so much angst...
Then that all that effort going into the Distribute fork, so much effort expended carefully working around so that Distribute would be a bug-fixed, drop-in replacement for the orphaned setuptools.
Then suddenly out of the blue, everything is fixed in setuptools 06c10 and we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes.
Makes sense because you can't have two "setuptools" packages in sys.path.
If the changes you made really were superior in any way, I trust that Tarek and co. are smart, and egoless enough to see that and will make those changes part of Distribute.
One such fix has already made it to distribute's repo.
Too little, too late, no thanks, I'll just be sticking with Distribute from now on.
Several developers and an open development process vs a lone coder with a closed codebase? That's not really a choice at all...
S
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, ssteinerX@gmail.com wrote:
we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their package includes a 'setuptools' package, and if it's on your sys.path, then installing the new version of setuptools will be a no- op. If they hadn't done that, there'd be no problem. See the Distribute documentation.
In any case, the update is not intended for people who are happy to have Distribute, but the people who are unhappy about having to switch, or deal with its workarounds... or just wish the whole discussion would go away.
Then suddenly out of the blue
It may appear sudden to you, if you haven't been reading Python- Dev. There's been quite a bit of discussion about an urgent bug that Tarek introduced in Python 2.6.3. It's mainly because of that bug that I took the time to go ahead and get a bunch of other pending bugs cleaned up and checked in.
No, I've been reading Python-Dev right along. Yes, Python 2.6.3 included a change that broke a year-old, orphaned product, in severe need of bug fixes that lots of people just happen to depend on. The fall-down was in the testing done before the Python release and I'm sure more testing will be done in that area before the 2.6.4 bugfix release. I find it kind of comical, and a little pathetic, that you think you can just whip out a bug fix after a year of frustration and everone's just going to forget history and sign up for more of the same. As Alex said in response to my previous message:
Too little, too late, no thanks, I'll just be sticking with Distribute from now on. Several developers and an open development process vs a lone coder with a closed codebase? That's not really a choice at all...
Sorry, it doesn't look like anyone wants to play with you any more; you can just keep your ball. Maybe you could submit some patches into the open Distribute process. Now _that_ would be helpful. S
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, ssteinerX@gmail.com wrote:
we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their package includes a 'setuptools' package, and if it's on your sys.path, then installing the new version of setuptools will be a no-op. If they hadn't done that, there'd be no problem. See the Distribute documentation.
In any case, the update is not intended for people who are happy to have Distribute, but the people who are unhappy about having to switch, or deal with its workarounds... or just wish the whole discussion would go away.
That's me, along with the other Python users who need this distutils/setuptools/buildout to work in production and cannot afford the kind of disruption which 'distribute' will introduce. I'm glad to see the distribute project in progress with an open development process but would rather it be used for a new Python 3.x PyPi, where all the new libraries can include the appropriate support for distribute (with no need to clean up a vast library of existing PyPi packages). Sorry to jump into the middle of a heated debate which I've not followed closely, but I wanted to provide some feedback that I (and my employer) am glad to have fixes to setuptools because that provides critical infrastructure to us today, and if Python 2.6.3 or 2.6.4 contains important fixes, we don't want to get stranded in 2.6.2.
2009/10/13 ssteinerX@gmail.com <ssteinerx@gmail.com>:
Then suddenly out of the blue, everything is fixed in setuptools 06c10 and we must "uninstall Distribute completely" get these fixes.
Well yes. We knew this would happen sooner or later. It's not a problem. We all know it would be better if PJE would let others help him, but he doesn't want to, and that is his right and completely up to him. Obviously any fixes he does is going to end up in Distribute 0.6.x as well. They might not be done in exactly the same ways, unless he feels like explaining why his way is better for each of the fixes. But they will be fixed in Distribute, and in fact have for the most part already been fixed. 2009/10/13 P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com>:
That's Distribute's doing, not mine.
True. On the other hand, Distribute is your doing, so you aren't completely blameless. :-)
In any case, the update is not intended for people who are happy to have Distribute, but the people who are unhappy about having to switch, or deal with its workarounds...
Absolutely true.
or just wish the whole discussion would go away.
Well, I sure everyone wants the discussion to go away, but that probably only happens the day you let others help you. 2009/10/13 Brad Allen <bradallen137@gmail.com>:
That's me, along with the other Python users who need this distutils/setuptools/buildout to work in production and cannot afford the kind of disruption which 'distribute' will introduce.
Disruption?
I'm glad to see the distribute project in progress with an open development process but would rather it be used for a new Python 3.x PyPi, where all the new libraries can include the appropriate support for distribute (with no need to clean up a vast library of existing PyPi packages).
If there isn't a migration path where you can support both from the same codebase, Python 3 is dead. So that is not an option.
Sorry to jump into the middle of a heated debate which I've not followed closely, but I wanted to provide some feedback that I (and my employer) am glad to have fixes to setuptools because that provides critical infrastructure to us today, and if Python 2.6.3 or 2.6.4 contains important fixes, we don't want to get stranded in 2.6.2.
There we completely agree. That PJE releases a new version of setuptools is good. It's not a problem for anyone, and the more software the merrier. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
ssteinerX@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, ssteinerX@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, the update is not intended for people who are happy to have Distribute, but the people who are unhappy about having to switch, or deal with its workarounds... or just wish the whole discussion would go away.
Thanks P.J. very much for this release of setuptools. I'm one of those who'd prefer not to switch to distribute until it has matured and built up a reputation for responsible stewardship of the technology. When it does, great I'm there but until then setuptools does what I need without hassle.
The fall-down was in the testing done before the Python release and I'm sure more testing will be done in that area before the 2.6.4 bugfix release.
Not really - according to the emails on this list, the incompatibility was found _before_ the 2.6.3 release and it was decided so what let things break. More testing would _not_ have prevented this problem.
Too little, too late, no thanks, I'll just be sticking with Distribute from now on. Several developers and an open development process vs a lone coder with a closed codebase? That's not really a choice at all...
Sorry, it doesn't look like anyone wants to play with you any more; you can just keep your ball.
Please don't speak for others - it's rude. Only speak for yourself. -Jeff
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jeff Rush <jeff@taupro.com> wrote:
The fall-down was in the testing done before the Python release and I'm sure more testing will be done in that area before the 2.6.4 bugfix release.
Not really - according to the emails on this list, the incompatibility was found _before_ the 2.6.3 release and it was decided so what let things break. More testing would _not_ have prevented this problem.
That mistake I have done was not done on purpose so now stop with this kind of accusation immediatly.
Sorry, it doesn't look like anyone wants to play with you any more; you can just keep your ball.
Please don't speak for others - it's rude. Only speak for yourself.
And you, stop to think for the others, pointing fingers and throwing mud, you are the one who is rude right now. Tarek.
Peace. *What would newcomers think?????* On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Jeff Rush <jeff@taupro.com> wrote:
The fall-down was in the testing done before the Python release and I'm sure more testing will be done in that area before the 2.6.4 bugfix release.
Not really - according to the emails on this list, the incompatibility was found _before_ the 2.6.3 release and it was decided so what let things break. More testing would _not_ have prevented this problem.
That mistake I have done was not done on purpose so now stop with this kind of accusation immediatly.
Sorry, it doesn't look like anyone wants to play with you any more; you can just keep your ball.
Please don't speak for others - it's rude. Only speak for yourself.
And you, stop to think for the others, pointing fingers and throwing mud, you are the one who is rude right now.
Tarek. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On Oct 13, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Jeff Rush wrote:
Too little, too late, no thanks, I'll just be sticking with Distribute from now on. Several developers and an open development process vs a lone coder with a closed codebase? That's not really a choice at all...
Sorry, it doesn't look like anyone wants to play with you any more; you can just keep your ball.
Please don't speak for others - it's rude. Only speak for yourself.
I apologize -- I didn't mean to speak for anyone who hasn't already spoken. I was specifically speaking to the "Several developers..." Thank you for telling me how to behave, which is not rude at all. S
On -10/01/37 20:59, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/10/13 Milind Khadilkar<zedobject@gmail.com>:
Peace. What would newcomers think?????
Sadly, they'd probably get precisely the correct impression :-( Exactly, what I have seen on this list for the last couple of days has finally given me that bit of motivation to chuck my package's dependency on setuptools and I will leave people here to continue as they wish.
Michael Whapples
Paul.
participants (11)
-
Alex Grönholm -
Brad Allen -
Jeff Rush -
Lennart Regebro -
Michael Whapples -
Milind Khadilkar -
P.J. Eby -
Paul Moore -
ssteinerX＠gmail.com -
Tarek Ziadé -
Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn