From ziade.tarek at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 16:34:29 2009
From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:34:29 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
Message-ID: <94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Carlos Tejo Alonso
<carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org> wrote:
>
> Anyway, thanks for the link. About license classifiers, how can be define that the version of tht LGPL of the package is the version 3?
>

I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I
am ccing this request to catalog-sig so
they can add it if they think it's wise

> Another issue: Is possible to define more than one author of the package?

Well, you can put several names in the author field but just one email
in author_email. And this email has to
be the one in your PyPI account if you push your package there.

Notice that there's also the maintainer field.

>
> -------------------------------------
> Carlos Tejo Alonso
> Research & Development Department
> CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain]
> www.fundacionctic.org
> -------------------------------------
>



-- 
Tarek Ziad? | http://ziade.org

From martin at v.loewis.de  Thu Apr 16 23:08:00 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:08:00 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>

> I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I
> am ccing this request to catalog-sig so
> they can add it if they think it's wise

How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3,
or as a subclassifier of LGPL?

Regards,
Martin

From ziade.tarek at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 23:49:11 2009
From: ziade.tarek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tarek_Ziad=E9?=)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:49:11 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/4/16 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>:
>> I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I
>> am ccing this request to catalog-sig so
>> they can add it if they think it's wise
>
> How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3,
> or as a subclassifier of LGPL?
>

Looking at others (Mozilla Public License) I would go for a separate
one with the suffix.

But what about LGPL 2 and 2.1 (It seems that 2.1 is introduces a lot
of changes) ?

Maybe "LGPL2+" would be better for the 2.x series (and maybe 2+ includes v3 ?)

Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in
our Trove classifier.

Regards
Tarek

> Regards,
> Martin
>



-- 
Tarek Ziad? | http://ziade.org

From renesd at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 04:15:53 2009
From: renesd at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Dudfield?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:15:53 +1000
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>

hellos,

Is it just me, or are these classifiers not as good as tags?

Should people really have to discuss and get approved what tags they put on
their software?

Seems like a big waste of everyones time, and doesn't result in as good a
database.

cheers,


2009/4/17 Tarek Ziad? <ziade.tarek at gmail.com>

> 2009/4/16 "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de>:
> >> I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I
> >> am ccing this request to catalog-sig so
> >> they can add it if they think it's wise
> >
> > How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3,
> > or as a subclassifier of LGPL?
> >
>
> Looking at others (Mozilla Public License) I would go for a separate
> one with the suffix.
>
> But what about LGPL 2 and 2.1 (It seems that 2.1 is introduces a lot
> of changes) ?
>
> Maybe "LGPL2+" would be better for the 2.x series (and maybe 2+ includes v3
> ?)
>
> Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in
> our Trove classifier.
>
> Regards
> Tarek
>
> > Regards,
> > Martin
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tarek Ziad? | http://ziade.org
> _______________________________________________
> Catalog-SIG mailing list
> Catalog-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090417/d7d3bac1/attachment.htm>

From tseaver at palladion.com  Fri Apr 17 16:07:42 2009
From: tseaver at palladion.com (Tres Seaver)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:07:42 -0400
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ren? Dudfield wrote:

> Is it just me, or are these classifiers not as good as tags?
> 
> Should people really have to discuss and get approved what tags they put on
> their software?
> 
> Seems like a big waste of everyones time, and doesn't result in as good a
> database.

Controlled vocabulary fields have different usecases than tags /
folksonomy:  precise searching is one of them.

For licensing, I would say we could update the PEP to say that the
'licence' argument could be used to clarify the classifier (e.g., to
spell the version).


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJ6I0u+gerLs4ltQ4RAuqFAJwOBxln1uTDFdWwRBsRxGhBE8cnmwCgvaFd
24V13vQVsEKukdGPw0UBeh4=
=cfgi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From martin at v.loewis.de  Sat Apr 18 01:18:37 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:18:37 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>	<64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
	<gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de>

> For licensing, I would say we could update the PEP to say that the
> 'licence' argument could be used to clarify the classifier (e.g., to
> spell the version).

That works for me.

Regards,
Martin

From carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org  Sat Apr 18 20:04:33 2009
From: carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org (Carlos Tejo Alonso)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:04:33 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils]   Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>	<64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
	<gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org> <49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>

>> For licensing, I would say we could update the PEP to say that the
>> 'licence' argument could be used to clarify the classifier (e.g., to
>> spell the version).
>
>That works for me.

>From my point of view, in order to achive that humans and machines could read by themselves the license of a package, why not create a proper classifier?

BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software product, that means that the license applied is the last one.

Regards,

Carlos Tejo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090418/b0ffae65/attachment.htm>

From fdrake at gmail.com  Sun Apr 19 02:16:26 2009
From: fdrake at gmail.com (Fred Drake)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:16:26 -0400
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
	<gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org> <49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
Message-ID: <9cee7ab80904181716t52949d77m46f67a9c747afd4e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/4/18 Carlos Tejo Alonso <carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org>:
> BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she
> explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software
> product, that means that the license applied is the last one.

The last one at the time of licensing or the last one at the time
someone comes back later and asks?

Either way, the answer will change depending on who you ask; there's
not necessarily exactly one answer.

The licensor is responsible for specifying the license; there's no
value in an unspecified version.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.    <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller

From carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org  Sun Apr 19 11:11:23 2009
From: carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org (Carlos Tejo Alonso)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:11:23 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org><94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com><09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org><94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com><49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de><94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com><64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com><gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org>
	<49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de><09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<9cee7ab80904181716t52949d77m46f67a9c747afd4e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1461@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>

>> BTW, I asked today a friend who is involved in license issue and she
>> explained me that: if the version of a license is not declared in a software
>> product, that means that the license applied is the last one.

>The last one at the time of licensing or the last one at the time
>someone comes back later and asks?

As my friend told me, this is an example:

2018 - LGPL 3.0 is released
2019 - Package X is licensed by LPGL (no version)
2020 - LPGL 4.0 is released
2021 - What's the license of the package X? LGPL 4.0

Regards,

Carlos Tejo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090419/c9d43f45/attachment.htm>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Sun Apr 19 12:14:11 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:14:11 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1461@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org><94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com><09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org><94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com><49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de><94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com><64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com><gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org>
	<49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de><09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<9cee7ab80904181716t52949d77m46f67a9c747afd4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1461@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
Message-ID: <49EAF973.5050104@v.loewis.de>

> 2018 - LGPL 3.0 is released
> 2019 - Package X is licensed by LPGL (no version)
> 2020 - LPGL 4.0 is released
> 2021 - What's the license of the package X? LGPL 4.0

IANAL, but I don't believe this example; in addition, I
consider it fairly artificial. The LGPL recommends that
you include a verbatim copy of it in your source
distribution; if you do so, it seems fairly clear that
the license that you specified is the very version that
you include with your code, even if you don't mention
a version number explicitly.

OTOH, if you then also include the following text in
the source files (which the LGPL suggests that you do),
then clearly, you explicitly make it the user's choice
to pick a version:

    This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

However, that wording is specific to the LGPL (and the GPL),
and does not apply to any other license.

Regards,
Martin

From fdrake at gmail.com  Sun Apr 19 17:40:14 2009
From: fdrake at gmail.com (Fred Drake)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:40:14 -0400
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
In-Reply-To: <49EAF973.5050104@v.loewis.de>
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<64ddb72c0904161915p5df5c7acwdb9c1f69c70bb46@mail.gmail.com>
	<gsa2fl$gs1$2@ger.gmane.org> <49E90E4D.4050109@v.loewis.de>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1460@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<9cee7ab80904181716t52949d77m46f67a9c747afd4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902BB1461@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<49EAF973.5050104@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <9cee7ab80904190840v25bb4bf1n6207286f386cbedf@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:14 AM, "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> However, that wording is specific to the LGPL (and the GPL),
> and does not apply to any other license.

More importantly, it only applies if you specifically include it.

The problem I see is with non-specification; it should be more
difficult to specify imprecisely (by including text as described) than
to specify precisely.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.    <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller

From carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org  Wed Apr 22 15:18:17 2009
From: carlos.tejo at fundacionctic.org (Carlos Tejo Alonso)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:18:17 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] [Distutils] Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
References: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190595094A@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160347n71122936wf118bf73f7f1f713@mail.gmail.com>
	<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905950B7D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
	<94bdd2610904160734m936fd87r3bcceaa0c7977a0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<49E79E30.4000904@v.loewis.de>
	<94bdd2610904161449r221a3609t2a046ee844754e2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281905AD79F0@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>

> Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in
> our Trove classifier.

There is a list [1] of OSI approved licenses. Maybe it could be useful for the trove classifier.

-------------------------------------
Carlos Tejo Alonso
Research & Development Department
CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain]
www.fundacionctic.org
------------------------------------- 

[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category

From lists at zopyx.com  Fri Apr 24 10:44:31 2009
From: lists at zopyx.com (Andreas Jung)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:44:31 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] PyPI XMLRPC Error for zc.lockfile==1.0
Message-ID: <1E118F94-5ECF-4A51-98CA-4B466DBC7962@zopyx.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Martin,

I get the following error for package zc.lockfile==1.0  while using
releae_data():

Package zc.lockfile==1.0
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "bin/z2_kgs", line 12, in ?
     zope.z2release.cli.main()
   File "/Users/ajung/.buildout/eggs/zope.z2release-0.1.1-py2.4.egg/ 
zope/z2release/cli.py", line 82, in main
     write_index(package, version, dirname)
   File "/Users/ajung/.buildout/eggs/zope.z2release-0.1.1-py2.4.egg/ 
zope/z2release/cli.py", line 44, in write_index
     rel_data = server.release_data(package, version)
   File "/opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/xmlrpclib.py", line 1096, in  
__call__
     return self.__send(self.__name, args)
   File "/opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/xmlrpclib.py", line 1383, in  
__request
     verbose=self.__verbose
   File "/opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/xmlrpclib.py", line 1147, in  
request
     return self._parse_response(h.getfile(), sock)
   File "/opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/xmlrpclib.py", line 1286, in  
_parse_response
     return u.close()
   File "/opt/python-2.4.4/lib/python2.4/xmlrpclib.py", line 744, in  
close
     raise Fault(**self._stack[0])
xmlrpclib.Fault: <Fault 1: 'Traceback (most recent call last):\n  File  
"/data/pypi/src/pypi/rpc.py", line 19, in handle_request\n    response  
= globals()[methodName](webui_obj.store, *methodArgs)\n  File "/data/ 
pypi/src/pypi/rpc.py", line 62, in release_data\n    info =  
store.get_package(package_name, version).as_dict()\n  File "/data/pypi/ 
src/pypi-new/store.py", line 122, in as_dict\n    res[key] = self[key] 
\n  File "/data/pypi/src/pypi-new/store.py", line 107, in __getitem__ 
\n    return self._getters[index](self.info)\n  File "/data/pypi/src/ 
pypi-new/store.py", line 78, in utf8get\n    if fields[n] is None:  
return fields[n]\nTypeError: \'NoneType\' object is unsubscriptable\n'>


Mit freundlichen Gr??en/Kind regards,
Andreas Jung

- ---
ZOPYX Ltd. & Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 T?bingen - Germany
Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: info at zopyx.com - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, Handelsregister A 381535
Gesch?ftsf?hrer/Gesellschafter: ZOPYX Limited, Birmingham, UK
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Publishing, Python, Zope & Plone development, Consulting




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAknxe+8ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYzWjwCgl8ZXUKIPnIvKFdeqhuqNH2ge
UQQAoK1Dxy+yIhr+cPzjfJ1WsxdxAQum
=2RUE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From lists at zopyx.com  Tue Apr 28 07:30:10 2009
From: lists at zopyx.com (Andreas Jung)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:30:10 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] Setuptools + Subversion 1.6 - new setuptools release
	necessary
Message-ID: <49F69462.6050309@zopyx.com>

Hi there,

it is known that the latest setuptools version produces broken
packages with SVN 1.6 checkouts. Could we get a fixed setuptools
version asap - fixing this issue is essential
(there is some patch floating around).

Andreas


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lists.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090428/afff6428/attachment.vcf>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Tue Apr 28 09:11:07 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:11:07 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] PyPI XMLRPC Error for zc.lockfile==1.0
In-Reply-To: <1E118F94-5ECF-4A51-98CA-4B466DBC7962@zopyx.com>
References: <1E118F94-5ECF-4A51-98CA-4B466DBC7962@zopyx.com>
Message-ID: <49F6AC0B.3070101@v.loewis.de>

> I get the following error for package zc.lockfile==1.0  while using
> releae_data():
> 
> Package zc.lockfile==1.0

That's because that release doesn't exist. Ask for 1.0.0 instead.

Regards,
Martin

From lists at zopyx.com  Tue Apr 28 09:15:47 2009
From: lists at zopyx.com (Andreas Jung)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:15:47 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] PyPI XMLRPC Error for zc.lockfile==1.0
In-Reply-To: <49F6AC0B.3070101@v.loewis.de>
References: <1E118F94-5ECF-4A51-98CA-4B466DBC7962@zopyx.com>
	<49F6AC0B.3070101@v.loewis.de>
Message-ID: <42d8a3d10904280015y5acc5bbcu390ddfaf91e2e58e@mail.gmail.com>

Jup, but asking for non existing release should give you a nicer and more
usefull error message.

Andreas

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:11, "Martin v. L?wis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:

> > I get the following error for package zc.lockfile==1.0  while using
> > releae_data():
> >
> > Package zc.lockfile==1.0
>
> That's because that release doesn't exist. Ask for 1.0.0 instead.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090428/7946e5a9/attachment.htm>

From chris at simplistix.co.uk  Tue Apr 28 14:51:13 2009
From: chris at simplistix.co.uk (Chris Withers)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:51:13 +0100
Subject: [Catalog-sig] Setuptools + Subversion 1.6 - new setuptools
 release necessary
In-Reply-To: <49F69462.6050309@zopyx.com>
References: <49F69462.6050309@zopyx.com>
Message-ID: <49F6FBC1.8080001@simplistix.co.uk>

Andreas Jung wrote:
> it is known that the latest setuptools version produces broken
> packages with SVN 1.6 checkouts. Could we get a fixed setuptools
> version asap - fixing this issue is essential
> (there is some patch floating around).

I think you meant this to go to the distutils sig...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

From lists at zopyx.com  Tue Apr 28 14:58:27 2009
From: lists at zopyx.com (Andreas Jung)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:58:27 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] Setuptools + Subversion 1.6 - new setuptools
 release necessary
In-Reply-To: <49F6FBC1.8080001@simplistix.co.uk>
References: <49F69462.6050309@zopyx.com> <49F6FBC1.8080001@simplistix.co.uk>
Message-ID: <49F6FD73.10809@zopyx.com>

On 28.04.2009 14:51 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> it is known that the latest setuptools version produces broken
>> packages with SVN 1.6 checkouts. Could we get a fixed setuptools
>> version asap - fixing this issue is essential
>> (there is some patch floating around).
>
> I think you meant this to go to the distutils sig...

Ups, sorry.

Andreas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lists.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20090428/7439dc4f/attachment.vcf>

From martin at v.loewis.de  Tue Apr 28 18:42:53 2009
From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:42:53 +0200
Subject: [Catalog-sig] PyPI XMLRPC Error for zc.lockfile==1.0
In-Reply-To: <42d8a3d10904280015y5acc5bbcu390ddfaf91e2e58e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E118F94-5ECF-4A51-98CA-4B466DBC7962@zopyx.com>	
	<49F6AC0B.3070101@v.loewis.de>
	<42d8a3d10904280015y5acc5bbcu390ddfaf91e2e58e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49F7320D.4020700@v.loewis.de>

Andreas Jung wrote:
> Jup, but asking for non existing release should give you a nicer and more
> usefull error message.

Please submit a bug report.

Regards,
Martin