PILwoTk egg to PyPI?
Would someone be willing to add the PILwoTk-1.1.6.3(-py2.4-linux-i686).egg to PyPI? If PILwoTk becomes a PyPI entry, I'd like to ask a follow-up on the Plone list to see if ploneout buildouts can/should by default depend on PILwoTk to satisfy Plone-3.0's PIL dependency. I'm able to use PILwoTk for this purpose while still running from a python with no installed pacakges, making ploneout very easy to use. Thanks.
On Oct 19, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
Would someone be willing to add the PILwoTk-1.1.6.3(-py2.4-linux- i686).egg to PyPI?
Binaries, except for Windows, should never never be uploaded to PyPI (or download.zope.org). There are just too many variables to building binaries. A more interesting questions is whether the source release should be uploaded. I wish someone could convince Fredrik Lundh to make a saner release of PIL. Maybe someone could pursue this on the image- sig mailing list (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/). Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
Binaries, except for Windows, should never never be uploaded to PyPI (or download.zope.org). There are just too many variables to building binaries.
Yes, that's what I meant to ask for, PILwoTk-1.1.6.3 to PyPI as a source release. I'm currently using http://download.zope.org/distribution/PILwoTk-1.1.6.3.tar.gz
A more interesting questions is whether the source release should be uploaded. I wish someone could convince Fredrik Lundh to make a saner release of PIL. Maybe someone could pursue this on the image- sig mailing list (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/).
Yes, that's what I was hoping to avoid asking ;) since I don't know the PIL packaging rationale. The effbot.org release pages are so thorough, I presumed that PIL was going to continue to be packaged as-is. Thanks.
If you mean sane in the sense of setuptools-compatible, I've actually repackaged PIL to use setuptools here: http://dist.repoze.org/PIL-1.1.6.tar.gz On Oct 19, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
Would someone be willing to add the PILwoTk-1.1.6.3(-py2.4-linux- i686).egg to PyPI?
Binaries, except for Windows, should never never be uploaded to PyPI (or download.zope.org). There are just too many variables to building binaries.
A more interesting questions is whether the source release should be uploaded. I wish someone could convince Fredrik Lundh to make a saner release of PIL. Maybe someone could pursue this on the image- sig mailing list (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/).
Jim
-- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists -http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
On Oct 19, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
If you mean sane in the sense of setuptools-compatible, I've actually repackaged PIL to use setuptools here:
OK, so now we *both* have. :) It would be better, IMO, if we could get Fredrik to make the release setuptools compatible in the first place. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
In the meantime, that URL is meant to be there "forever", so those who want it should feel free to use it. - C On Oct 19, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
If you mean sane in the sense of setuptools-compatible, I've actually repackaged PIL to use setuptools here:
OK, so now we *both* have. :)
It would be better, IMO, if we could get Fredrik to make the release setuptools compatible in the first place.
Jim
-- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation
participants (3)
-
Chris McDonough -
Jeff Kowalczyk -
Jim Fulton