Re: [Python-Dev] [Distutils] PEP 376 - from PyPM's point of view
At 04:59 PM 7/15/2009 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
- Virtualenv isn't a workaround (I don't know virtualenv, I'll take your word for it)
It's not one for system package maintainers because it would effectively be managing multiple instances of 'python'. Really not a suitable solution.
- I do not believe that it's clear that sanctioning the setuptools workaround as the "right" approach by building it into the Python core/stdlib is the right thing to do.
I still don't understand how we're doing that.
I've been trying to follow this discussion now for weeks. The signal to noise ratio is pretty low. I'd love to have an stdlib solution for distribution packaging and installation. But I think we might as well pack it up and go home if the folks whom are contributing to the discussion "recreationally" (whom are not themselves implementers and potential implementers or spec writers or potential spec writers of packaging systems) continue to chime in on *every single issue*, contributing only stop energy. It's just completely pointless. - C On 7/15/09 12:34 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 04:59 PM 7/15/2009 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
- Virtualenv isn't a workaround (I don't know virtualenv, I'll take your word for it)
It's not one for system package maintainers because it would effectively be managing multiple instances of 'python'. Really not a suitable solution.
- I do not believe that it's clear that sanctioning the setuptools workaround as the "right" approach by building it into the Python core/stdlib is the right thing to do.
I still don't understand how we're doing that.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/lists%40plope.com
2009/7/15 Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com>:
I've been trying to follow this discussion now for weeks. The signal to noise ratio is pretty low.
I agree :-(
I'd love to have an stdlib solution for distribution packaging and installation. But I think we might as well pack it up and go home if the folks whom are contributing to the discussion "recreationally" (whom are not themselves implementers and potential implementers or spec writers or potential spec writers of packaging systems) continue to chime in on *every single issue*, contributing only stop energy. It's just completely pointless.
I thought that as someone who is writing code for Tarek's PEP 376 prototype implementation, I counted as offering useful input. Thinking further on what I've said, I'm no longer sure that's true. I do think that at *some* point, the feedback from the non-packagers, negative or irrelevant though it might be, needs to be requested and considered. Maybe now isn't the right time, but it needs to be done at some point. Until then, I'll try to avoid adding to the noise. Paul.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:47:35 -0400, Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> wrote:
I've been trying to follow this discussion now for weeks. The signal to noise ratio is pretty low.
I'm -1 on that.. As a relative newcomer to python packaging I'm finding all these discussions very informative. :-)
I'd love to have an stdlib solution for distribution packaging and installation.
That's right. I'd love to find out what the process is for submitting my pythonpkgmgr project for consideration into the stdlib. As it fills a huge gap that you've just identified that currently exists within the python that is being shipped today. That is, allowing users to easily install packages from pypi.
But I think we might as well pack it up and go home if the folks whom are contributing to the discussion "recreationally" (whom are not themselves implementers and potential implementers or spec writers or potential spec
writers of packaging systems) continue to chime in on *every single issue*,
contributing only stop energy. It's just completely pointless.
We can all work in different ways.. I'm not writing PEPS and don't care too much about how the internals of a package work. As long as there are APIs for such stuff I'm happy. What I'm working on is to try to improve the user experience which isn't so handled so easily by a design by commitee process. Packaging and Distutils, need to be looked at wholistically as well. It's not just about the api's, but how well they work. It's not noise.... it's just the process.... ps: (http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall) "Easy Install ... Please share your experiences with us! If you encounter difficulty installing a package, please contact us via the distutils mailing list. (Note: please DO NOT send private email directly to the author of setuptools; it will be discarded. " So what are we to do if we find issues with setuptools other than to post to distutils? David
participants (4)
-
Chris McDonough -
David Lyon -
P.J. Eby -
Paul Moore