[Distutils] Proposal for incorporating buildout-versions on buildout (Re: Better version pinning in buildout (buildout-versions))
Reinout van Rees
reinout at vanrees.org
Mon Jan 28 13:17:27 CET 2013
On 28-01-13 12:50, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Reinout van Rees <reinout at vanrees.org> wrote:
>>>>> 3. New buildout option: ``python-version`` that restricts the Python
>>>>> version, with the same semantics as buildout-version provides now.
>>> Hm. I copy/pasted the buildout-versions code and worked from there.
>>> Buildout-versions simply looks at a 'python' entry in the [versions] part,
>>> so that's different from a python-version option.
>>> That's not too bad as it saves us another buildout option. But... do we want
>>> to change this?
>> I think so. Python itself is not a distutils distribution. This feels like
>> mixing apples and oranges. Also, version entries can now have
>>> =, >, <= and < modifiers, but you aren't supporting that for Python versions.
>> I'd rather make this a separate option.
>> Also, the implementation shouldn't simply test whether the version is
>> in the version string. It's too easy to get false matches. The
>> implementation should parse the version (maybe as simple as splitting
>> on dots) and check it against sys.version_info.
Yeah, I saw that the implementation wasn't perfect. It looks at the
whole string including "linux 2.1.xxx", so python=2 would work all the
time. Copy/pasted from buildout-versions.
> I should have mentioned that an option is to defer the python-version
> feature for later.
I'll take the python version out of my pull request for now and create a
separate issue that points at the removed code.
Reinout van Rees http://reinout.vanrees.org/
reinout at vanrees.org http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl/
"If you're not sure what to do, make something. -- Paul Graham"
More information about the Distutils-SIG