data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33250/33250af20922a831c31f7ef0da1e3e089214cd2b" alt=""
distutils/command/dist.py contains this code # -- Metadata query methods ---------------------------------------- ... def get_version(self): return self.version or "???" which returns '???' as a version number if none is specified in the setup script. Since the bdist commands construct a filename containing the version number this leads to an invalid filename under windows, and the builds fail with a traceback like this: zip -rq D:\workspace\projects\epos\bin\dist\startup-???.win32.zip . creating 'D:\workspace\projects\epos\bin\dist\startup-???.win32.zip' and adding '.' to it error: D:\workspace\projects\epos\bin\dist\startup-???.win32.zip: Invalid argument The fix for bug #409403 (Signal an error if the distribution's metadata has no version) fixed this behaviour by requiring a version number: if self.metadata.version is None: raise DistutilsSetupError, \ "No version number specified for distribution" In the meantime, version 1.47 of dist.py, this code has been removed again. Log message: "Back out the requirement to supply a version number". Why was this done? I do not know whether we should require a version number or not, but at least the "???" string literal should be changed to something which can be part of a valid filename under windows (although IMO 'UNKNOWN' isn't really a better version number than '???')... Thomas
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/addaf/addaf2247848dea3fd25184608de7f243dd54eca" alt=""
Thomas Heller wrote:
No idea and I think that we should indeed require the version number -- it's not much of an effort for a developer to add a version number after all.
How about '0.0.0' ?! -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3040d/3040dd380b2ce74f66e41346244010902b84f287" alt=""
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:40:55AM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
The motivation came from Numeric Python, where several Distutil scripts are used to build subcomponents. These individual subcomponents don't have version numbers of their own, so requiring a version number in each script was too strict. Using either 0.0.0 or UNKNOWN as the version number would be fine with me. (It would also be a 2.1.2 bugfix candidate.) --amk
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/addaf/addaf2247848dea3fd25184608de7f243dd54eca" alt=""
Thomas Heller wrote:
No idea and I think that we should indeed require the version number -- it's not much of an effort for a developer to add a version number after all.
How about '0.0.0' ?! -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3040d/3040dd380b2ce74f66e41346244010902b84f287" alt=""
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:40:55AM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
The motivation came from Numeric Python, where several Distutil scripts are used to build subcomponents. These individual subcomponents don't have version numbers of their own, so requiring a version number in each script was too strict. Using either 0.0.0 or UNKNOWN as the version number would be fine with me. (It would also be a 2.1.2 bugfix candidate.) --amk
participants (3)
-
Andrew Kuchling
-
M.-A. Lemburg
-
Thomas Heller