Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Carsten Schoenert Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: PDM - Python package manager for Debian Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 11:00:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Apr 3 08:59:23 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DIGITS_LETTERS=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MD5_SHA1_SUM=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 X-Greylist: delayed 486 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bendel; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 08:59:09 UTC MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Toi-Expurgateid: 150726::1648975859-0000B7AB-5D0A2D40/0/0 CLEAN NORMAL X-Toi-Msgid: 66699261-207c-40ed-9dea-763ea68db0b6 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19866 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/0488bd82-712a-b262-712d-17ef059afe28@t-online.de Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 44 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:50:59 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <0488bd82-712a-b262-712d-17ef059afe28@t-online.de> X-Original-References: <6382926e-6edc-d4ee-2b97-9b33cf3989fb@t-online.de> <19b9ef68-ec54-404a-842a-570b572fa925@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14044 Hi Nick, Am 03.04.22 um 09:58 schrieb Dominik George: > Hi Carsten, > >> Or is there a way to get such packages build without a need for PDM to be around? > > This should really not matter at all when packaging for Debian. The > source tarball should include a setup.cfg or setup.py file (i.e. be a > regular Python sdist), and if not developing on the package, you > should never meet PDM. yeah, but upstream isn't shipping one or both files, it only ships a file pyproject.toml. And switched from Poetry to PDM recently https://github.com/mkdocstrings/autorefs/commit/85f3920ec153e6aa3c206475977b8666ac340504 > If the upstream sdist is not installable without PDM, this is > probably an upstream bug; but my guess is that you chose a Git export > instead of a real sdist as orig.tar.gz. No, I did pick up the tagged version 0.4.1 as tarball from GitHub as usual to start with as I'm aware of this trap. https://github.com/mkdocstrings/autorefs/tags I've compared the tarball from GH with the file from PyPi, the sdist on PyPi contains even less files than the GH tarball, but also no setup.* files. https://pypi.org/project/mkdocs-autorefs/#files If helpful I can upload my current WIP scratch status to my namespace on Salsa. So far I've read about PDM the past hours, it's quite new yes, but more upstream projects will switch or start with this package management system I guess. So somehow the Debian packaging of Python libraries will need to deal with this. -- Regards Carsten