News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Better Pip Workflow by falsedan on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @03:19PM (#11212693)
setuptools? distutils you mean?

I much prefer fpm for creating Linux distro packaged from a python distribution, since it can create debs.

Re:A Better Pip Workflow by snuxoll on Friday March 04, 2016 @02:17AM (#11222461)
No, I mean setuptools - it does everything distutils does but better.

I don't trust random scripts to generate packages for me, writing an rpmspec or a debian control file is hardly a challenge and I'd encourage more people to take the 5 minutes to do so than relying on tools like FPM.

Re:A Better Pip Workflow by falsedan on Friday March 04, 2016 @05:08AM (#11222896)
… or tools like setuptools?

Also, I assume you're talking about the bdist_rpm target that come from distutils.

Re:A Better Pip Workflow by snuxoll on Friday March 04, 2016 @10:48AM (#11224483)
No, I write a proper RPM spec file - only takes a few minutes.
Re:A Better Pip Workflow by falsedan on Friday March 04, 2016 @03:50PM (#11226751)
So, what's the added bonus of using setuptools then?
Re:A Better Pip Workflow by snuxoll on Friday March 04, 2016 @09:03PM (#11228084)
setuptools is just less generally crufty than distutils, and things like entrypoints make writing installable console scripts feasible. Since it provides essentially the same interface the default rpmspec created by rpmdev-newspec works with it out of the box.