[lxml-dev] Files missing from lxml 0.9 win32
I downloaded http://carcass.dhs.org/lxml-0.9.win32-py2.4.exe and ran some of its tests.
It is missing some files. So far I've individually downloaded test1.rng and test2.rng. test_broken.xml and test_xinclude.xml are next.
They seem to be missing from http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/2.4/l/lxml/lxml-0.9-py2.4-win32.egg as well. The tgz has the files, I might try installing from that.
Pete Forman a écrit :
I downloaded http://carcass.dhs.org/lxml-0.9.win32-py2.4.exe and ran some of its tests.
It is missing some files. So far I've individually downloaded test1.rng and test2.rng. test_broken.xml and test_xinclude.xml are next.
They seem to be missing from http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/2.4/l/lxml/lxml-0.9-py2.4-win32.egg as well. The tgz has the files, I might try installing from that.
I think lxml's setup.py lacks some package_data directive:
http://docs.python.org/dist/node11.html
I can fix that tonight (GMT) in the trunk if nobody does it before.
Olivier Grisel wrote:
Pete Forman a écrit :
I downloaded http://carcass.dhs.org/lxml-0.9.win32-py2.4.exe and ran some of its tests.
It is missing some files. So far I've individually downloaded test1.rng and test2.rng. test_broken.xml and test_xinclude.xml are next.
They seem to be missing from http://cheeseshop.python.org/packages/2.4/l/lxml/lxml-0.9-py2.4-win32.egg as well. The tgz has the files, I might try installing from that.
I think lxml's setup.py lacks some package_data directive:
http://docs.python.org/dist/node11.html
I can fix that tonight (GMT) in the trunk if nobody does it before.
That would be good, thanks!
Unless Stefan has been hacking on the trunk to add features very recently, this can be a 0.9.1. Stefan, if you're going to hack features, perhaps branch off a 0.9 branch.
Regards,
Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Unless Stefan has been hacking on the trunk to add features very recently, this can be a 0.9.1. Stefan, if you're going to hack features, perhaps branch off a 0.9 branch.
Right, we wanted to do that anyway, so I just did. There is now a branch called "lxml-0.9.x". It is branched from the current trunk and thus contains the little fixes and doc updates from the last two days.
All 0.9 maintenance stuff can go in there.
Stefan
Stefan Behnel a écrit :
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Unless Stefan has been hacking on the trunk to add features very recently, this can be a 0.9.1. Stefan, if you're going to hack features, perhaps branch off a 0.9 branch.
Right, we wanted to do that anyway, so I just did. There is now a branch called "lxml-0.9.x". It is branched from the current trunk and thus contains the little fixes and doc updates from the last two days.
All 0.9 maintenance stuff can go in there.
Ok so I'll double commit my setup.py fixes both in 0.9.x and trunk tonight.
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Unless Stefan has been hacking on the trunk to add features very recently, this can be a 0.9.1. Stefan, if you're going to hack features, perhaps branch off a 0.9 branch.
Right, we wanted to do that anyway, so I just did. There is now a branch called "lxml-0.9.x". It is branched from the current trunk and thus contains the little fixes and doc updates from the last two days.
All 0.9 maintenance stuff can go in there.
Small comment: a branch name of lxml-0.9 for the 0.9 line would be nicer in my opinion - seems to be the conventional way to do it.
Regards,
Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Olivier Grisel wrote:
Pete Forman wrote:
So far I've individually downloaded test1.rng and test2.rng. test_broken.xml and test_xinclude.xml are next.
I think lxml's setup.py lacks some package_data directive: http://docs.python.org/dist/node11.html I can fix that tonight (GMT) in the trunk if nobody does it before.
That would be good, thanks!
Right, I always had them in MANIFEST.in, but actually, they are package data.
On the other hand:
These files are really part of the test suite. Maybe the right question here is: why is the test suite part of the eggs at all? Eggs are supposed to be installed into "python/site-packages". No-one needs the test suite there.
So I think we should check if we can't remove the test suite from the eggs.
Stefan
Stefan Behnel a écrit :
Right, I always had them in MANIFEST.in, but actually, they are package data.
On the other hand:
These files are really part of the test suite. Maybe the right question here is: why is the test suite part of the eggs at all? Eggs are supposed to be installed into "python/site-packages". No-one needs the test suite there.
So I think we should check if we can't remove the test suite from the eggs.
Yes + the fact that 'package_data' is 2.4 specific and would have broken the 2.3 compat.
So I removed the tests out of the egg (in trunk and the 0.9.x branch). I use that egg on my system and everything seems to work (362 tests ok).
Olivier Grisel nous écrivait précédemment:
Stefan Behnel a écrit :
Right, I always had them in MANIFEST.in, but actually, they are package data.
On the other hand:
These files are really part of the test suite. Maybe the right question here is: why is the test suite part of the eggs at all? Eggs are supposed to be installed into "python/site-packages". No-one needs the test suite there.
So I think we should check if we can't remove the test suite from the eggs.
Yes + the fact that 'package_data' is 2.4 specific and would have broken the 2.3 compat.
So I removed the tests out of the egg (in trunk and the 0.9.x branch). I use that egg on my system and everything seems to work (362 tests ok).
Thanks. I think if people want to run the test suite, they either
1) have the tar ball anyway since they are building binaries
or
2) are interested in getting bugs fixed and can therefore be expected to accept downloading the tar ball separately to run it.
I just added a note on that on the install page.
BTW: Since this does not have any impact on end-users, I don't think this is already worth a 0.9.1 -- although it may give us the chance to shrink the size of the Linux egg.
Stefan
participants (4)
-
Martijn Faassen -
Olivier Grisel -
Pete Forman -
Stefan Behnel