PMXBOT Log file Viewer

Help | Karma | Search:

#pypa logs for Friday the 21st of February, 2014

(Back to #pypa overview) (Back to channel listing) (Animate logs)
[00:00:07] <dstufft> X.Y.1+ it doesn't seem very useful
[00:02:40] <qwcode> dstufft, ok, sure
[01:04:57] <dstufft> qwcode: tagged the releases
[01:05:04] <dstufft> qwcode: want to try them before I push to PyPI?
[01:07:47] <dstufft> oh joy
[01:07:54] <dstufft> tons of conflicts on the merge from master into develop
[01:29:17] <qwcode> dstufft, docs?
[01:30:55] <qwcode> or req.py
[01:31:47] <qwcode> dstufft, if you want I can try the merge later.
[01:32:21] <dstufft> qwcode: docs and req.py
[01:32:28] <dstufft> I almost have it the conflicts fixed
[01:32:33] <dstufft> the only thing left is something i'm not sure about
[01:32:44] <qwcode> dstufft, both are my doing : )
[01:33:17] <dstufft> I have a merge conflict in docs/reference/pip.rst
[01:33:18] <dstufft> https://gist.github.com/dstufft/9127124
[01:33:24] <dstufft> not sure how to resolve that one
[01:34:32] <dstufft> do I just delete the --exists-action docs?
[01:34:37] <qwcode> keep it
[01:34:57] <dstufft> qwcode: can you fork my gist and make changes to what it should be and i'll just copy/paste it in?
[01:36:26] <qwcode> dstufft, https://gist.github.com/qwcode/9127153
[01:36:38] <dstufft> qwcode: thanks
[01:37:15] <dstufft> merged it in
[01:37:16] <dstufft> and pushed it
[01:37:22] <dstufft> if you want to verify the merge
[02:13:14] <Ivo> Did anyone know that the form multipart encoding of distutils' upload has been broken ever since it was first implemented?
[02:14:09] <Ivo> 'Cus it is.
[02:35:03] <qwcode> dstufft, ok, I can look at the merge later.
[02:35:34] <qwcode> Ivo, I didn't know
[02:35:34] <dstufft> Ivo: how so?
[02:35:51] <Ivo> http://bugs.python.org/issue10510
[02:37:31] <dstufft> Ivo: interesting
[02:37:40] <dstufft> qwcode: hopefully 1.5.3 is our last in the 1.5.3 series
[02:37:57] <dstufft> the req.py split and the pep8 cleanup makes it kind of annoying to merge between them
[02:39:18] <qwcode> dstufft, yea, hope so
[02:39:23] <Ivo> It's sent \n\n line endings instead of \r\n
[02:39:45] <dstufft> qwcode: btw, larry cherry picked 1.5.3 into 3.4.0
[02:39:47] <Ivo> And I'm pretty sure Eric Aruajo can't read RFCs :/
[02:39:59] <dstufft> so we'll get 1.5.3 in the first release of 3.4
[02:40:00] <Ivo> dstufft: I saw that, that was pretty fast! GW!
[02:40:27] <dstufft> I should probably ask if we should upgrade setuptools to 2.2 from 2.1
[02:40:50] <dstufft> probably not
[02:40:56] <dstufft> no bug was affecting anything there
[02:40:57] <qwcode> dstufft, neither pip or virtualenv's rst is rendering on pypi, which is annoying
[02:41:00] <dstufft> whereas 1.5.3 did have one
[02:41:01] <dstufft> qwcode: ugh
[02:41:05] <dstufft> wonder why
[02:41:10] <dstufft> I hate pypi's rst rendering
[02:41:44] <qwcode> virtualenv develop has a fix for it https://github.com/pypa/virtualenv/commit/d1d4b7039d55b6793b576216b89ff4a36ce87e24
[02:43:19] <qwcode> not sure what's wrong with pip's
[02:44:13] <dstufft> qwcode: that didn't fix anything
[02:44:15] <dstufft> I just tried
[02:45:02] <qwcode> dstufft, it did remove the toc markup, I thought that was the problem
[02:45:29] <dstufft> PyPI has a customized rst render
[02:45:58] <qwcode> dstufft, maybe cause pip has this in the quickstart First, :doc:`Install pip <installing>`.
[02:46:15] <dstufft> oh
[02:46:18] <dstufft> that might be a sphinx extension
[02:47:27] <qwcode> virtualenv appears to have a stray .. comment:
[02:48:05] <qwcode> gotta run atm though... be back on in a few hours...
[02:57:53] <qwcode> dstufft, actually, back how did you update virtualenv's pypi page?
[02:58:11] <dstufft> qwcode: I made the same modification locally and ran setup.py register
[02:58:59] <qwcode> dstufft, is it safe to just edit the description in pypi to confirm what's the problem? I'm editing virtualenv now, but have never done that before
[02:59:07] <dstufft> qwcode: sure
[02:59:30] <qwcode> submit with "Add information" button?
[02:59:36] <dstufft> uh
[02:59:38] <dstufft> probably
[02:59:45] <dstufft> I've never actually used the web ui heh
[03:00:40] <Ivo> what happened to this patch? http://bugs.python.org/issue12169
[03:00:58] <qwcode> ok, pip page is fixed. it was the :doc: reference.
[03:01:52] <qwcode> dstufft, ^ I'll fix in develop and 1.5.X inclined to remove the quickstart from the long description if it means it has to be dumbed down
[03:02:24] <dstufft> qwcode: might make sense to make README.rst a nice landing page for both github and PyPI
[03:02:31] <dstufft> and leave the docs separate
[03:02:36] <qwcode> yes, I was thinking the same
[03:02:41] <qwcode> will do tomorrow
[03:02:54] <qwcode> but still virtualenv is busted....
[03:03:16] <dstufft> virtualenv problem is probably the news link
[03:03:30] <qwcode> yes
[03:03:51] <dstufft> probably the same thing
[03:03:57] <dstufft> make README.rst a nice landing page
[03:04:01] <dstufft> and leave the docs to the docs
[03:05:50] <qwcode> agreed
[03:06:09] <qwcode> editing pypi killed my chrome session
[03:06:58] <qwcode> ok, well both are atleast rendering now
[03:10:58] <dstufft> qwcode: cool, good work
[03:30:10] <Ivo> qwcode: btw, thanks again for all the review on my patch
[04:57:06] <Alex_Gaynor> dstufft: eh, wat? https://travis-ci.org/pyca/cryptography/jobs/19310446#L700
[05:44:08] <Alex_Gaynor> dstufft: As far as I can tell every invocation of pip 1.5.3 triggers a warning
[06:16:38] <Ivo> Alex_Gaynor: https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1584
[06:22:15] <dstufft> lol
[06:22:17] <dstufft> WHOOPS
[06:23:18] <qwcode> dstufft, yea, changing now in 1.5.X. stupid
[06:23:37] <dstufft> larry's gonna love this heh
[06:23:42] <dstufft> oh well :D
[06:23:48] <Ivo> bwow bwow bwowwwww
[06:24:50] <Ivo> happy as larry!
[06:27:00] <qwcode> dstufft, I just dropped it from the check, but still mention --build in the message if they use the other 3 options
[06:27:21] <dstufft> qwcode: can we check if the build option is different than the default?
[06:27:45] <Ivo> the 'default' depends if you're in a virtualenv or not..
[06:28:01] <Ivo> also, if you're on os x.
[06:28:25] <dstufft> ok
[06:30:35] <qwcode> dstufft, yes, we could compare if it's different than pip.locations.build_prefix. that's probably ok. if someone is pinning the build_dir in the config file for some reason, the message could get annoying, but they are the people we are trying to inform
[06:31:22] <Ivo> you could use nargs='?'; if its just --build, it can be set to True, in which case you can set it to build_prefix; if it has an arg, you can set it directly to that
[06:31:35] <Ivo> would be a flexibleish option
[06:33:31] <qwcode> Ivo, I don't follow. I think it's just a matter of asking whether options.build_dir != pip.locations.build_prefix in the install command
[06:34:37] <qwcode> pip.locations.build_prefix is the default
[06:34:51] <dstufft> qwcode: sounds like the plan to go forward for me
[06:34:54] <dstufft> to me
[06:35:00] <dstufft> add something in the changelog too plz
[06:35:15] <Ivo> well you have three use cases; 1. no build_dir, which will become default; 2. build_dir is default build_prefix; 3. build_dir is a custom path. If you used, say [False, None] as sentinal values you could check for both 1. and 2. in 1.5.x
[06:35:17] <qwcode> dstufft, you mean the default check? or leave it?
[06:35:28] <dstufft> the default check
[06:41:02] <dstufft> qwcode: I should be around to cut a release
[06:41:42] <qwcode> dstufft, pushed the change
[06:42:15] <dstufft> gonna wait for tests I guess
[06:42:20] <qwcode> ok
[06:45:12] <qwcode> Ivo, you're concerned that we should log the warning, if they happen to set it manuallly set it to the default?
[06:46:04] <Ivo> qwcode: you could set it to None, but give them the option to set it to the previous default, if they relied on that
[06:47:06] <qwcode> Ivo, set it to None? we use the default value
[06:47:42] <Ivo> e.g it starts off as None; if user passes --build, its set to default, if they pass --build <x> its set as that
[06:48:40] <Ivo> was just trying to think of a way to give many options for people
[06:52:46] <qwcode> Ivo, our idea is that the build dirs should have never been fixed, and there's no reason for people to control the location, so wanting to get rid of all this, and use tmp build dirs
[06:53:04] <Ivo> qwcode: yeah, dw
[07:25:50] <qwcode> dstufft, you doing it tonight?
[07:26:07] <Theuni2> i really hope i'm out of context right now ;)
[07:26:35] <qwcode> yes
[07:26:56] <Theuni2> good morning, then :)
[07:32:51] <qwcode> dstufft, tests passed
[08:44:15] <Ivo> is code that runs current pypi online?
[08:44:30] <Ivo> / OSS somewhere?
[08:45:11] <Ivo> aha, |https://bitbucket.org/pypa/pypi/src
[13:03:32] <dstufft> http://bugs.python.org/issue20721 for those following along at home wrt pip and CPython 3.4
[14:15:05] <Ivo> One does not simply release a patch version pip
[14:18:40] <Ivo> well, shit
[14:18:43] <Ivo> https://goo.gl/maps/BkECf
[14:22:43] <jezdez> hehe
[17:24:34] <apollo13> blubb
[17:24:53] <apollo13> actually it looks like it fails as soon as the wheel is built from a src tar as compared to a git checkout, no idea why yet
[17:25:15] <apollo13> I can upload the created wheel it looks half sane
[17:28:18] <jezdez> apollo13: could you describe the issue for the others?
[17:28:59] <apollo13> the issue appears (at least from what I can tell) to be that a wheel generated from the django sdist installs data files into the virtualenv root, whereas when I generate a wheel from the git checkout it works fine
[17:30:14] <dstufft> apollo13: git checkout of the same code?
[17:30:22] <apollo13> hmm no, there seems to be something else missing, the git checkout now has the same error
[17:30:30] <apollo13> damn, I just created a functional wheel before
[17:31:49] <apollo13> dstufft: actually yes, but it gets even worse
[17:31:58] <apollo13> pip uninstall Django|grep conf/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/django.po
[17:31:58] <apollo13> /home/florian/.virtualenvs/f234941b484122a5/django/conf/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/django.po
[17:32:41] <apollo13> okay, command back, datafiles are installed to the venv root, that's the issue, my bash tricked me into a wrong dir before
[17:33:23] <apollo13> I misstyped cdvirtualenv with cdsitepackages at some point which led me to believe that my wheel was functional at some point
[17:33:45] <dstufft> data_files are supposed to be installed to the venv root
[17:34:00] <apollo13> oh, then I never understood packing
[17:34:30] <apollo13> 1d424817 (Adrian Holovaty 2006-10-16 21:50:46 +0000 81) data_files = data_files,
[17:34:42] <apollo13> but we are installing data_files since 2006 and they never end up in the root?
[17:35:29] <apollo13> did pip change something? :þ
[17:35:29] <dstufft> http://docs.python.org/2/distutils/setupscript.html#installing-additional-files
[17:35:36] <dstufft> those files should be pacakge_data
[17:36:15] <apollo13> so how did that ever work?
[17:36:34] <dstufft> https://github.com/django/django/blob/1.4.10/setup.py#L42-L43
[17:36:45] <dstufft> because django override the datafiles location with the purelib location
[17:36:59] <apollo13> so why doesn't it work then :þ
[17:37:23] <dstufft> because a Wheel doesn't execute setup.py?
[17:37:52] <dstufft> it works when you do setup.py install because Django's setup.py monkeypatches distutils to tell it to put datafiles inside the PURELIB directory
[17:37:55] <apollo13> ah
[17:38:15] <dstufft> it doesn't work when you install it from a Wheel because Django can't monkeypatch that so it goes to where it should go
[17:38:16] <apollo13> any reason why we didn't use package_data then?
[17:38:27] <dstufft> did Django originally support python 2.3?
[17:38:38] <apollo13> at some point I guess
[17:38:41] <dstufft> package_data was new in 2.4
[17:38:56] <dstufft> http://docs.python.org/2/distutils/setupscript.html#installing-package-data
[17:39:04] <dstufft> ^ that's what Django should be using
[17:39:36] <dstufft> also if you switch to package_data
[17:39:49] <dstufft> then https://github.com/django/django/blob/1.4.10/setup.py#L7-L43 and https://github.com/django/django/blob/1.4.10/setup.py#L62-L66 can be deleted too
[17:40:12] <apollo13> well in master it's already setuptools and I had package_data there
[17:40:30] <qwcode> apollo13, you seen this? https://bitbucket.org/dholth/wheel/issue/80/wheel-does-not-install-data_files-in-site
[17:41:09] <apollo13> qwcode: nope, but that explains a lot :)
[17:41:42] <qwcode> apollo13, this is another wheel difference too https://bitbucket.org/dholth/wheel/issue/92/bdist_wheel-makes-absolute-data_files
[17:42:39] <apollo13> jezdez: I found the issue in django
[17:42:47] <jezdez> yeah?
[17:43:00] <apollo13> http://github.com/django/django/commit/506913cdd85fbe52eb29e62e6884b398f0ef1dc2
[17:43:09] <apollo13> I never intended 1.4 to be packageable via wheel
[17:43:16] <apollo13> jacob just backported the Makefile…
[17:43:21] <jezdez> bah
[17:44:09] <apollo13> which got me confused now, cause I added the Makefile just for bdist_wheel in the first place, hence I thought I backported wheel stuff to 1.4
[17:44:33] <jezdez> I see
[17:44:40] <apollo13> you could just backport https://github.com/django/django/commit/a5becad9094e5c5403b692b9a7b3a6ffaabf64a3
[17:44:50] <jezdez> fwiw, if we're switching to using package_data (we should) then take a look at find_package_data
[17:44:52] <jezdez> https://github.com/django-compressor/django-compressor/blob/master/setup.py#L30-L107
[17:45:14] <jezdez> ah, or that
[17:45:24] <apollo13> jezdez: I am waiting for you to look at master/setup.py and kill me
[17:45:39] <apollo13> packages=find_packages(exclude=EXCLUDE_FROM_PACKAGES),
[17:45:39] <apollo13> include_package_data=True,
[17:45:41] <apollo13> *runs*
[17:45:54] <apollo13> master/1.7 is setuptools, so…
[17:45:56] <jezdez> include_package_data eh?
[17:45:57] <dstufft> qwcode: I just verified that that ticket is wrong
[17:46:02] <dstufft> qwcode: the first one
[17:46:13] <jezdez> apollo13: well, include_package_data should just work on newer versions of python
[17:46:18] <dstufft> distutils does not installdata files relative to site-packages
[17:46:24] <dstufft> carljm: ping
[17:46:26] <apollo13> jezdez: perfect :)
[17:46:40] <jezdez> well, I'm not sure what's the best course of action
[17:46:46] <jezdez> it's quite a bit of a backport
[17:46:46] <apollo13> for master or 1.4?
[17:46:49] <jezdez> 1.4
[17:46:53] <jezdez> I don't care about master
[17:46:57] <jezdez> it works there for me
[17:47:20] <qwcode> dstufft, meaning carljm was mistaken in what he saw?
[17:47:32] <jezdez> god, I hate setup.py/MANIFEST/MANIFEST.in/setup.cfg
[17:47:33] <apollo13> jezdez: let's continue in dj-dev
[17:47:39] <jezdez> it's like the worst API ever
[17:47:56] <dstufft> qwcode: not sure, but distutils installs to the virtualenv root for me
[17:48:06] <jezdez> apollo13: ok
[17:52:48] <dstufft> https://gist.github.com/dstufft/9139344
[17:53:05] <dstufft> https://gist.github.com/dstufft/9139344#file-virtualenv-tree-L21-L22 here is data file being installed to root
[18:08:52] <qwcode> dstufft, as for absolute paths, there's what should be, and then there's the concern that bdist_wheel (as setuptools extension) behaves very differently than setuptools
[18:09:07] <dstufft> qwcode: I mean we should reject it and fail
[18:09:13] <dstufft> if there's an absolute path
[18:09:18] <dstufft> don't silently corrup
[18:09:36] <dstufft> but letting random packages put absolute paths in is a security issue
[18:10:02] <dstufft> sudo pip install something -> downloads a Wheel which overrides your /etc/hosts
[18:10:56] <qwcode> dstufft, I mentioned making bdist_wheel fail for absolure paths in the issue description, so I agree, but my concern was more about wheel doing something inconsistent with setuptools, vs security
[18:11:08] <dstufft> qwcode: sure
[18:11:14] <dstufft> I was probably not clear
[18:11:32] <dstufft> I meant to be saying that I agree with the idea that we fail on absolute paths
[18:12:15] <qwcode> dstufft, I'm guessing many people rely on setuptools allowing absolute data_file paths.... for wheel just to stuff those files somewhere else, is odd. better to fail, so people can know to package differently
[18:12:52] <dstufft> yes
[18:12:54] <dstufft> I agree
[18:12:55] <dstufft> fail hard
[18:13:07] <dstufft> silent data corruption bad
[18:13:09] <dstufft> fail hard good
[18:13:11] <dstufft> :D
[18:13:44] <qwcode> I'm guessing daniel just doesn't have the time to respond to that issue. I though it was a big deal : )
[20:24:39] <dstufft> https://github.com/lalitkapoor/github-changes
[20:29:55] <qwcode> dstufft, on a related note, our Authors files is hard to maintain, because it's not just a simple list of authors from commits. it has alternative names, due to older times, where people were asked to add themselves. thinking it should just be an automated deal from commit names
[20:30:27] <dstufft> qwcode: yea
[20:30:34] <dstufft> I've been thinking about stuff like that
[20:30:41] <dstufft> Openstack has PBR, but I don't like all of PBR
[20:30:47] <dstufft> and it's either all or nothing
[20:31:21] <dstufft> I've been thinking about this kind of thing though
[20:31:34] <dstufft> maybe I'll sketch out some ideas and post it to the mailing list
[20:31:42] <dstufft> We're really bad at managing authors and changelog
[20:34:32] <qwcode> daniel says absolute paths "need to be allowed", but not clear what his rationale is
[20:34:44] <dstufft> I don't agree with him
[20:35:13] <qwcode> I don't even know why he thinks that