[Twisted-Python] 2.0.0 pre-pre-release
I've thrown together some tarballs with my latest release automation code. You can download them here:
http://twistedmatrix.com/users/radix/2.0/
Please download the packages relevant to you and give them a test. You'll need to install Twisted-2.0.0a1 before any of the other subproject packages in there, and it depends on zope.interface being installed, which I haven't bothered including yet.
If anybody's interested in making packages for their OS, now's the time to start working on it.
Thanks!
I've thrown together some tarballs with my latest release automation code. You can download them here:
Is there any information (other than the sourcecode itself ;-) available about what has is new since 1.x?
TIA,
Best regards
Wolfgang Keller
Not yet. There will be by the final release, or sooner if itamar or whoever gets around to it.
So, has anyone tried any of the packages? I would really like it if everyone told me what packages they installed and tested, even if it went smoothly. ;)
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:27:49 +0100, Wolfgang Keller wolfgang.keller.nospam@gmx.de wrote:
I've thrown together some tarballs with my latest release automation code. You can download them here:
Is there any information (other than the sourcecode itself ;-) available about what has is new since 1.x?
TIA,
Best regards
Wolfgang Keller
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 09:13 +1100, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
So, has anyone tried any of the packages? I would really like it if everyone told me what packages they installed and tested, even if it went smoothly. ;)
Briefly tried Twisted + TwistedWeb this morning and it seemed just fine.
Cheers, Matt
On Monday 31 January 2005 16:48, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
If anybody's interested in making packages for their OS, now's the time to start working on it.
For the lazy in me, does anyone want to create a quick dep list for these packages. For example:
Twisted python >= 2.2
TwistedConch Twisted >= 2.0.0a1 PyOpenSSL >= 0.5.1
blah blah blah
Or, are the debs created in a secret hiding place?
thanks,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005, Jeff Pitman wrote:
Or, are the debs created in a secret hiding place?
http://twistedmatrix.com/bugs/issue567 suggests that debs aren't being generated yet (and in fact, may not be by the time of the release).
-Mary
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:45, Mary Gardiner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005, Jeff Pitman wrote:
Or, are the debs created in a secret hiding place?
http://twistedmatrix.com/bugs/issue567 suggests that debs aren't being generated yet (and in fact, may not be by the time of the release).
Ok. I can work out a good Requires list for rpm (which is what I'm building). But, if someone's already done a freshmeat requirements list or anything of the sort, let me know.
thanks,
Hi !
I've thrown together some tarballs with my latest release automation code. You can download them here:
Thanks for doing this.
Please download the packages relevant to you and give them a test. You'll need to install Twisted-2.0.0a1 before any of the other subproject packages in there, and it depends on zope.interface being installed, which I haven't bothered including yet.
Some remarks:
- I've tested on Fedora Core 3. trial gives me one failure and one error; relevant output attached. - The split FAQ led me to believe there would be one Twisted package as before; which would contain everything as before. Core would be in a TwistedCore package. The tarballs on your site seem to have Core in the Twisted tarball. Is that intentional ? - I wonder why the naming of tarballs is the way it is. For example, the URL will be .../twisted/web, the import package is twisted.web, why is the tarball TwistedWeb-(version).tar.bz2 ? - As a general request on behalf of packagers, it's nice to not have anything but digits in version numbers. I know this is probably a contented point of view.
I'll report some more when I managed to package it up (or wrest RPM's from Jeff's hands) and have been able to use them against some of our tests.
Thanks Thomas
Dave/Dina : future TV today ! - http://www.davedina.org/ <-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*-> When you're on the outside baby and you can't get in I will show you you're so much better than you know <-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*-> URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.fm/
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:24:44 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele thomas@apestaart.org wrote:
- I've tested on Fedora Core 3. trial gives me one failure and one
error; relevant output attached.
Yeah, those were known bugs. I didn't wait for the buildbot to go green before putting out these alphas.
- The split FAQ led me to believe there would be one Twisted package as
before; which would contain everything as before. Core would be in a TwistedCore package. The tarballs on your site seem to have Core in the Twisted tarball. Is that intentional ?
Yeah. "Twisted Core" is just used to disambiguate it from the other subprojects of Twisted. AIUI, "Twisted" is officially the networking framework. The tarball that contains everything will just be a convenience, and it will be called something like TwistedSumo.tar.bz2. I encourage packagers to name the twisted core package "twisted" and twisted subproject packages "twisted-foo". A "sumo" package is unnecessary on all non-barbaric packaging systems; I only think it's appropriate in tarball and win32 form.
- I wonder why the naming of tarballs is the way it is. For example,
the URL will be .../twisted/web, the import package is twisted.web, why is the tarball TwistedWeb-(version).tar.bz2 ?
I don't understand your question. The tarball contains the word "twisted" and "web", and so do your examples of the words it is derived from. What is wrong with the way it is named?
- As a general request on behalf of packagers, it's nice to not have
anything but digits in version numbers. I know this is probably a contented point of view.
*shrug* none of the past RPM or deb packagers have ever asked me to change it, and they have successfully made packages.
I'll report some more when I managed to package it up (or wrest RPM's from Jeff's hands) and have been able to use them against some of our tests.
Thanks!
On Feb 6, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Yeah. "Twisted Core" is just used to disambiguate it from the other subprojects of Twisted. AIUI, "Twisted" is officially the networking framework. The tarball that contains everything will just be a convenience, and it will be called something like TwistedSumo.tar.bz2. I encourage packagers to name the twisted core package "twisted" and twisted subproject packages "twisted-foo". A "sumo" package is unnecessary on all non-barbaric packaging systems; I only think it's appropriate in tarball and win32 form.
I'm not sure that's right. I think it may be useful (and probably expected by users) on debian, say, to have a "twisted" package which installs every little bit of code associated with twisted, and a twisted-core package which is the core bits. The "twisted" package wouldn't actually contain any data, but simply depend on all the other packages. Such a package may actually even be *necessary*, in order to properly migrate dependancies forward (note that I'm not a debian packaging expert so I'm just guessing there).
James
Yeah, I might accept the "backwards compatibility with existing dependencies" argument, but I don't think it's something that's necessary for general use. In a post-split world, deb packages that use Twisted stuff will depend on specific twisted subproject packages. Anyway, I'm not the one doing the deb packages, but there are my two cents.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:26:03 -0500, James Y Knight foom@fuhm.net wrote:
On Feb 6, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Yeah. "Twisted Core" is just used to disambiguate it from the other subprojects of Twisted. AIUI, "Twisted" is officially the networking framework. The tarball that contains everything will just be a convenience, and it will be called something like TwistedSumo.tar.bz2. I encourage packagers to name the twisted core package "twisted" and twisted subproject packages "twisted-foo". A "sumo" package is unnecessary on all non-barbaric packaging systems; I only think it's appropriate in tarball and win32 form.
I'm not sure that's right. I think it may be useful (and probably expected by users) on debian, say, to have a "twisted" package which installs every little bit of code associated with twisted, and a twisted-core package which is the core bits. The "twisted" package wouldn't actually contain any data, but simply depend on all the other packages. Such a package may actually even be *necessary*, in order to properly migrate dependancies forward (note that I'm not a debian packaging expert so I'm just guessing there).
James
Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
It seems like on Sunday 06 of February 2005 23:41, Christopher Armstrong typed:
Yeah, I might accept the "backwards compatibility with existing dependencies" argument, but I don't think it's something that's necessary for general use. In a post-split world, deb packages that use Twisted stuff will depend on specific twisted subproject packages. Anyway, I'm not the one doing the deb packages, but there are my two cents.
You must remember that splitting into several packages from one tarball is much simpler than doing so using several different .spec files (each for one tarball) or bearing with many Sources in one big .spec. Moreover one tarball allows packagers to create -doc and -examples packages containing such things for whole Twisted. Personally I am a PLD Linux developer and until now (the one-tarball-distro version of Twisted 1.3) there are separate packages for docs, examples, ssl and some other, which I actually don't know what are they for and, believe me, managing packaging Twisted from one tarball plus splitting different parts into separate RPMs is really simpler than managing e.g. ten different .spec's. I know that because Xfce is distributed in dozens of tarballs, each has its own .spec file and both upgrading and reorganization of Xfce is a bit annoying. Summarizing, no, I'm not against changes. I'm only trying to insist on distributing Twisted also in one "gimme-all" tarball. ;-)
P.S. Please, write *under* a quotation.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:26:03 -0500, James Y Knight foom@fuhm.net wrote:
On Feb 6, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Yeah. "Twisted Core" is just used to disambiguate it from the other subprojects of Twisted. AIUI, "Twisted" is officially the networking framework. The tarball that contains everything will just be a convenience, and it will be called something like TwistedSumo.tar.bz2. I encourage packagers to name the twisted core package "twisted" and twisted subproject packages "twisted-foo". A "sumo" package is unnecessary on all non-barbaric packaging systems; I only think it's appropriate in tarball and win32 form.
I'm not sure that's right. I think it may be useful (and probably expected by users) on debian, say, to have a "twisted" package which installs every little bit of code associated with twisted, and a twisted-core package which is the core bits. The "twisted" package wouldn't actually contain any data, but simply depend on all the other packages.
That is what I would expect and prefer :)
-Eric
participants (9)
-
Christopher Armstrong -
Eric Mangold -
James Y Knight -
Jeff Pitman -
Mary Gardiner -
Matt Goodall -
Michal Chruszcz -
Thomas Vander Stichele -
Wolfgang Keller