data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/726f8/726f8bb5dab93cee8c63c8e4a0950787583fc925" alt=""
Hello If no one objects, I'll promote Tools/scripts/pysetup3 to a top level script that gets installed in scripts/ like 2to3, pydoc etc.. That way, people will be able to use it directly when installing, removing projects, or studying what's installed Cheers Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool. Now I'm trying to remember if it was a list discussion or the language summit where you got the initial consensus on that approach... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/726f8/726f8bb5dab93cee8c63c8e4a0950787583fc925" alt=""
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
The thread starts here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-October/104535.html The pysetup top-level script was mentioned here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-October/104581.html Cheers Tarek
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/215b7/215b7adf01bc898bda48de7b91c552774b4dd91f" alt=""
Le 31/05/2011 08:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
A few other reasons that were not mentioned previously: - In 2.4, we can’t run “-m distutils2.run”, but a pysetup2.4 script works - It’s nice for users to have something shorter than “python3.3 -m packaging.run run sdist” (I like to take “make” as the ideal goal) - It sends a message that we care about packaging (personal opinion) Regards
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eac55/eac5591fe952105aa6b0a522d87a8e612b813b5f" alt=""
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
Cool. Now I'm trying to remember if it was a list discussion or the language summit where you got the initial consensus on that approach... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/726f8/726f8bb5dab93cee8c63c8e4a0950787583fc925" alt=""
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
The thread starts here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-October/104535.html The pysetup top-level script was mentioned here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-October/104581.html Cheers Tarek
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/215b7/215b7adf01bc898bda48de7b91c552774b4dd91f" alt=""
Le 31/05/2011 08:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
A few other reasons that were not mentioned previously: - In 2.4, we can’t run “-m distutils2.run”, but a pysetup2.4 script works - It’s nice for users to have something shorter than “python3.3 -m packaging.run run sdist” (I like to take “make” as the ideal goal) - It sends a message that we care about packaging (personal opinion) Regards
participants (3)
-
Nick Coghlan
-
Tarek Ziadé
-
Éric Araujo