This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author michael.mulich
Recipients Peter.Waller, alexis, carljm, eric.araujo, higery, meatballhat, michael.mulich, tarek
Date 2011-07-12.01:14:44
SpamBayes Score 1.9984e-15
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <CACvZ6pwiWrKx5s_wiNNHpGNP3o0hF7ZdnhAAZEZHNDYPVG+uag@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <4E1B309B.6000508@dirtcircle.com>
Content
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Carl Meyer <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>> * Cases 2, 3, 5 and 6 are strongly related.
> I don't know. I don't consider case 3 useful, because I don't consider
> "I don't want to use a virtualenv" (without some clearer technical
> justification) to be a prejudice the develop feature needs to support;
> especially if supporting it essentially means re-implementing a
> less-capable version of virtualenv within the develop command.

I think your later comments about the use of .pth files solves the
issue for all four cases. We simply make reference in a .pth file in
one of the approved site locations. For example, in case two we would
write a .pth entry to site.USER_SITE. Sound about right?

>> -- Case 5
> Several of these stories make the assumption that even the "in-place"
> installation will require placing a file in the installation location (a
> .pth file, if we follow the current setuptools implementation strategy).
> I think this is probably true, given the requirements in case 6 (which I
> agree with). So if you want an in-place install that's globally
> accessible, you'd need write access to global site-packages.

Basically write the .pth entry for the build to a site (the standard
lib module) recognized location.

>> * Case 4
> Right, although the requirement for that story is that you don't have to
> re-run the develop command after every pull; if you develop-install it
> once, you can simply pull more code changes in and they'll immediately
> be available. I've added a line to that story to make it more clear.

Ah, this case impacts the decision being made in issue 12279
(http://bugs.python.org/issue12279). The decision is to write a RECORD
file or not. We wouldn't write a RECORD if you want to be able to
update without rerunning the develop command. But this would be
invalid based on PEP 376 guidelines. Please post your thoughts about
this in that issue.

The wiki page has been edited to note what the develop command will
write to the file system. I'll restate it here as well...

The develop command writes three pieces of information to the filesystem:
 1. It calls upon the build action(s) to build the package relative to
the package's root directory.
 2. It calls the [build|install]_distinfo action to write the
.dist-info metadata inside the build directory. (see also Issue 12279)
 3. It adds the build directory's path to a .pth file.

Thanks Carl
History
Date User Action Args
2011-07-12 01:14:45michael.mulichsetrecipients: + michael.mulich, tarek, carljm, eric.araujo, meatballhat, Peter.Waller, alexis, higery
2011-07-12 01:14:45michael.mulichlinkissue8668 messages
2011-07-12 01:14:44michael.mulichcreate