You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org by Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com> on 2011/06/29 18:04:27 UTC
setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
I hit another gotcha building shared on Ubuntu. I thought I had
setuptools installed. When I built JCC, I got no error message about
patch 43, and the config.py said "shared". But the library that got
built was "libjcc.a", not "libjcc.so".
Turns out that the Ubuntu package "python-setuptools" isn't really
setuptools; it's this:
Description: Python Distutils Enhancements (setuptools compatibility)
Extensions to the python-distutils for large or complex distributions.
.
Package providing compatibility with old setuptools (0.6c9).
Homepage: http://packages.python.org/distribute
Python-Version: 2.6
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
I had to download setuptools-0.6c11 from PyPI and install it manually
to get things to work.
Bill
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org>.
On Jun 29, 2011, at 22:17, Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote:
> Am 29.06.2011 18:13, schrieb Andi Vajda:
>> Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse. I wonder how the 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
>>
>> Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of setuptools ?
>> If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
>
> 'They' for setuptools is really just P.J. Eby. There hasn't been any
> serious development on setuptools in the past few years. Luckily Tarek
> has forked setuptools and started his work on distribute and distutils2.
> He is a very active developer and IMHO open to new ideas. Have you
> talked to him about the requirements for JCC? I'm sure he is going to
> integrate your patch soonish.
That would be great. I think I filed the equivalent of setuptools issue 43 on distribute a year or two ago.
> There isn't a reason to support vanilla
> setuptools anymore once the patch is part of distribute. distribute is
> fully backward compatible to setuptoools.
Yep, that would be perfect.
Andi..
>
> See http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute#about-the-fork for some
> background information.
>
> Christian
>
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de>.
Am 29.06.2011 18:13, schrieb Andi Vajda:
> Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse. I wonder how the 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
>
> Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of setuptools ?
> If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
'They' for setuptools is really just P.J. Eby. There hasn't been any
serious development on setuptools in the past few years. Luckily Tarek
has forked setuptools and started his work on distribute and distutils2.
He is a very active developer and IMHO open to new ideas. Have you
talked to him about the requirements for JCC? I'm sure he is going to
integrate your patch soonish. There isn't a reason to support vanilla
setuptools anymore once the patch is part of distribute. distribute is
fully backward compatible to setuptoools.
See http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute#about-the-fork for some
background information.
Christian
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org>.
Thank you for the details.
Andi..
On Jun 29, 2011, at 19:37, Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com> wrote:
> Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com> wrote:
>
>> Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse.
>>
>>> I wonder how the
>>> 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the
>>> Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they
>>> integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
>>
>> The way forward is "packaging" <http://docs.python.org/dev/packaging/>
>> (which I believe is also "distutils2"). This is the derivation of
>> "distribute".
>
> Just watched the PyCon talk on this: "packaging" is the Python 3.3+ name,
> "distutils2" is the Python 2 name. Same codebase and APIs, as much as
> possible.
>
>> See http://guide.python-distribute.org/_images/state_of_packaging.jpg,
>> in http://guide.python-distribute.org/introduction.html#current-state-of-packaging.
>>
>> ``So basically, I have forked Distutils and renamed its package into
>> Distutils2. The project is located in http://hg.python.org/distutils2
>> and the goal is to put it back into the standard library as soon as it
>> reaches a state where it starts to be used by the community. Distutils
>> will just die slowly, probably pulling Setuptools and Distribute with
>> it.''
>>
>> ``The Distribute project is still important because it can help us
>> releasing bug fixes or Python 3 support things today.''
>>
>> ``Distutils2 will be 2.4 to 3.2 compatible and will get back from
>> Distribute the good bits and implement the PEPs that were accepted
>> lately PEP 345 and PEP 386.''
>>
>>> Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of
>>> setuptools?
>>
>> No, sorry.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
>>>
>>> Andi..
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com>.
Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com> wrote:
> Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse.
>
> > I wonder how the
> > 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the
> > Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they
> > integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
>
> The way forward is "packaging" <http://docs.python.org/dev/packaging/>
> (which I believe is also "distutils2"). This is the derivation of
> "distribute".
Just watched the PyCon talk on this: "packaging" is the Python 3.3+ name,
"distutils2" is the Python 2 name. Same codebase and APIs, as much as
possible.
> See http://guide.python-distribute.org/_images/state_of_packaging.jpg,
> in http://guide.python-distribute.org/introduction.html#current-state-of-packaging.
>
> ``So basically, I have forked Distutils and renamed its package into
> Distutils2. The project is located in http://hg.python.org/distutils2
> and the goal is to put it back into the standard library as soon as it
> reaches a state where it starts to be used by the community. Distutils
> will just die slowly, probably pulling Setuptools and Distribute with
> it.''
>
> ``The Distribute project is still important because it can help us
> releasing bug fixes or Python 3 support things today.''
>
> ``Distutils2 will be 2.4 to 3.2 compatible and will get back from
> Distribute the good bits and implement the PEPs that were accepted
> lately PEP 345 and PEP 386.''
>
> > Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of
> > setuptools?
>
> No, sorry.
>
> Bill
>
> > If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
> >
> > Andi..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bill
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com>.
Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse.
> I wonder how the
> 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the
> Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they
> integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
The way forward is "packaging" <http://docs.python.org/dev/packaging/>
(which I believe is also "distutils2"). This is the derivation of
"distribute".
See http://guide.python-distribute.org/_images/state_of_packaging.jpg,
in http://guide.python-distribute.org/introduction.html#current-state-of-packaging.
``So basically, I have forked Distutils and renamed its package into
Distutils2. The project is located in http://hg.python.org/distutils2
and the goal is to put it back into the standard library as soon as it
reaches a state where it starts to be used by the community. Distutils
will just die slowly, probably pulling Setuptools and Distribute with
it.''
``The Distribute project is still important because it can help us
releasing bug fixes or Python 3 support things today.''
``Distutils2 will be 2.4 to 3.2 compatible and will get back from
Distribute the good bits and implement the PEPs that were accepted
lately PEP 345 and PEP 386.''
> Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of
> setuptools?
No, sorry.
Bill
> If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
>
> Andi..
>
>
> >
> > Bill
Re: setuptools not really setuptools on Ubuntu
Posted by Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org>.
On Jun 29, 2011, at 18:04, Bill Janssen <ja...@parc.com> wrote:
> I hit another gotcha building shared on Ubuntu. I thought I had
> setuptools installed. When I built JCC, I got no error message about
> patch 43, and the config.py said "shared". But the library that got
> built was "libjcc.a", not "libjcc.so".
>
> Turns out that the Ubuntu package "python-setuptools" isn't really
> setuptools; it's this:
>
> Description: Python Distutils Enhancements (setuptools compatibility)
> Extensions to the python-distutils for large or complex distributions.
> .
> Package providing compatibility with old setuptools (0.6c9).
> Homepage: http://packages.python.org/distribute
> Python-Version: 2.6
> Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
>
> I had to download setuptools-0.6c11 from PyPI and install it manually
> to get things to work.
Sigh. The setuptools story is getting worse. I wonder how the 'distribute' project is doing... It's the solution I used for the Python 3.1 jcc port I did last summer. In particular, I wonder if they integrated my patch, for that issue 43 I filed like four years ago.
Do you know if there is a way to detect this special version of setuptools ?
If so, I could ensure the patch is applied if still needed.
Andi..
>
> Bill