Log file Viewer

[00:19:20] <wickman> import site; site.getsitepackages() vs from distutils import sysconfig; sysconfig.get_python_lib()

[00:19:23] <wickman> discuss

[00:20:56] <wickman> apparently on ubuntu they have dist-packages instead of site-packages, but this doesn't show up in sysconfig.get_python_lib

[00:21:05] <wickman> what is this i don't even

[00:31:24] <dstufft> soo

[00:31:38] <dstufft> wickman: sysconfig isn't what anything uses to install things

[00:31:46] <dstufft> distutils.sysconfig!

[00:31:55] <dstufft> becuase having two different sysconfig's is not confusing

[00:32:22] <dstufft> also you should probably file a bug with ubuntu or debian about that

[00:32:32] <dstufft> becuase they probably just missed that spot when they patched it

[00:33:06] <wickman> so. probably what i'm going to do is just union the output from all of them together if they're available on the platform.

[00:33:23] <wickman> and use that for filtering sys.path and module.__path__

[00:33:55] <dstufft> oh this is for filtering something instead of installing somewhere?

[00:34:10] <dstufft> well

[00:34:15] <dstufft> *thinks*

[00:34:26] <dstufft> wickman: using site-packages on /usr/bin/python is wrong on debian

[00:34:46] <dstufft> though if you're filtering sys.path or sys.modules by them

[00:34:48] <dstufft> it won't matter

[00:35:00] <dstufft> you should still totally ile a bug tho

[05:56:25] <Ivo> dstufft: are you familiar with site.py?

[05:56:35] <dstufft> moderately

[09:50:11] <Ivo> does anyone have opinions on what definition of noteworthy should apply to issues going into pip's changelog?

[10:08:53] <Ivo> pf_moore: since you fixed a user issue, you might consider adding a changelog item

[15:43:02] <dstufft> Ivo: if in doubt it's better to add a note than not

[15:49:52] <pf_moore> Ivo: done, thanks for the reminder

[22:21:36] <yusuket> dstufft: ping. Just letting you know I’m around if you want to talk sqlalchemy transactions in warehouse

[22:22:18] <dstufft> yusuket: I think it's reasonable to punt on transactions and open up a ticket saying we need to add them

[22:22:32] <yusuket> ok, that sounds good

[22:22:42] <dstufft> since It sounds like it's going to be a larger issue than the PR in question

[22:22:54] <yusuket> haha definitely. It’s already a large set of changes

[22:23:32] <yusuket> I can start tackling that if you want though. I think I could just modify that app.query method to pass in an engine/connection instead of an app instance

[22:23:45] <yusuket> and then modify all methods to take a connection

[22:24:57] <yusuket> also I made all the other changes you mentioned, so I believe it’s good to merge

[22:26:35] <dstufft> yusuket: well the app.query thing only exists in a branch ATM

[22:27:20] <dstufft> yusuket: I think it's probably sane to open a ticket at this point with what you know about transaction handling, so it can be hashed out what method warehouse will use to do that

[22:30:18] <yusuket> dstufft: ok! I’ll do that. In the meantime, do you mind if I tackle the legacy registration/upload apis? That’s keeping warehouse from replacing pypi right?

[22:30:55] <dstufft> yusuket: yea that's fine

[22:31:19] <dstufft> I'll review your big PR in a bit

[22:37:52] <yusuket> awesome, thanks!

[23:40:22] <dstufft> https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/issues/308

[23:40:43] <dstufft> I know agronholm has opinions about ^