Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14148

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package

Show all headers | View raw

On 2022-06-07 07:11:15, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:42:53PM -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
>> > > _version.py is not a copy of versioneer, it's *generated* by versioneer.
>> > > However, there is versioneer.py in the root directory, which is. I'll
>> > > exclude that from the source and repack.
>> > 
>> > hmm... how about that generated file though? shouldn't it be ... well,
>> > generated at build time instead? :)
>> 
>> As far as I understand it, this file is used by the author of the program,
>> not end users. I don't understand it well, though, because I haven't put
>> much time into researching what versioneer even does.
>> If my hunch is correct, I may be able to just remove the file from the
>> source altogether, but I haven't tried that yet.
>
> As far as I understand, versioneer (or the _version.py generated by
> it) uses a whole bunch of heuristics to determine the version number
> of the package, for example by looking at git tags and so on.  Several
> times, I have found that _version.py in the PyPI release of a package
> is a very small file (just a few lines long) stating the version
> number of the package, while the _version.py in GitHub is huge and
> doesn't work on a standalone packaged version.  If I recall correctly,
> In more than one package I (co-)maintain, I've gone for the PyPI
> version of this file.

Uh! So you just keep the file around altogether? That seems like a break
of policy...

-- 
On reconnait la grandeur et la valeur d'une nation à la façon dont
celle-ci traite ses animaux.
                        - Mahatma Gandhi

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 02:10 +0200
  Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 03:20 +0200
    Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 04:30 +0200
      Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 04:50 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 16:50 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 00:50 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 15:30 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:10 +0200
        Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 16:30 +0200
          Re: Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 03:30 +0200

csiph-web