dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[David Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:54, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 09:34 -0700, David Borowitz wrote:
> > So, there are two steps to do here:
> > 1. Move all the content from bin/* into various modules.
> > 2. Replace/augment stub scripts with entry points (if we can agree on
> > a way to fail gracefully, etc.).
> >
>
> > Independent of our discussion on (2) there's no reason not to start
> > (1) now. Jelmer, were you planning on doing that? I'd be happy to if
> > you weren't.
>
> That sounds reasonable.  I didn't have any immediate plans to work on
> this, go for it. :-)
>

Ok. FYI I'll be working off of my recent changes, so don't let this block
you merging the changes to dul-web I already sent out.


> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:45, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >         On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:23 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >         > On May 26, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >         >
> >         > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:32 -0700, David Borowitz wrote:
> >         > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 13:31, Augie Fackler
> >         <durin42@xxxxxxxxx>
> >         > >> wrote:
> >         > >>
> >         > >>        On May 26, 2010, at 11:48 AM, David Borowitz
> >         wrote:
> >         > >>
> >         > >>                I'm definitely open to the idea of
> >         simplifying and/or
> >         > >>                combining dul-daemon
> >         > >>                and dul-web. To be honest, it feels a
> >         little messy
> >         > >>                every time I have to add
> >         > >>                more code to one of those scripts. In my
> >         ideal world,
> >         > >>                these wrapper scripts
> >         > >>                would contain as little code as possible
> >         (basically
> >         > >>                "if __name__ ==
> >         > >>                '__main__': start_server('http',
> >         sys.argv[1:])").
> >         > >>
> >         > >>                Another possibility that moves in a
> >         slightly different
> >         > >>                direction is to use
> >         > >>                setuptools's entry points:
> >         > >>
> >
> http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation
> >         > >>
> >         > >>
> >          <
> http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation
> >         > >> >(Tangentially,
> >         > >>                the reason I added the logging code to
> >         dul-web was
> >         > >>                that I didn't want to put
> >         > >>                the WSGI handlers in web.py, since wsgiref
> >         is not part
> >         > >>                of the python2.4
> >         > >>                standard library. That said, every
> >         python2.4 system I
> >         > >>                have has wsgiref
> >         > >>                installed, and I'm sure we could come up
> >         with a
> >         > >>                conditional import scheme
> >         > >>                that fails gracefully.)
> >         > >>
> >         > >>
> >         > >>        I'd be a _huge_ fan of using entry points instead
> >         of
> >         > >>        maintaining scripts - manually maintained scripts
> >         are often a
> >         > >>        colossal pain when using something like virtualenv
> >         or
> >         > >>        buildout.
> >         > >>
> >         > >>
> >         > >> I agree, that's why I suggested it :)
> >         > >
> >         > >> The only downside as far as I can see is that it
> >         introduces a
> >         > >> dependency on setuptools, but pretty much everyone has
> >         setuptools
> >         > >> anyway (don't they?). Maybe it's possible to do something
> >         equivalent
> >         > >> with distutils but I don't know how.
> >         > > FWIW I didn't have setuptools installed until I received a
> >         patch for
> >         > > Dulwich that added support for it to setup.py.
> >         > >
> >         > > Is there any particular benefit in using entry points
> >         rather than
> >         > > using
> >         > > a trivial stub script that does "from dulwich.server
> >         import
> >         > > start_server; start_server(sys.argv[1:])" ?
> >         >
> >         > You don't have a hardcoded shebang line which users may have
> >         to edit.
> >         > Even #!/usr/bin/env python can be wrong (if say, the default
> >         system
> >         > Python is 2.6, but someone is installing against a build of
> >         2.4 or 2.5
> >         > to test against a production-like environment).
> >
> >         Ah, ok.
> >
> >         As long as this doesn't mean depending on setuptools when we
> >         "import
> >         dulwich" I don't have any objections. We could either add the
> >         trivial
> >         stub if setuptools wasn't available or simply not install the
> >         dulwich
> >         and dul-daemon scripts.
> >
> >         Cheers,
> >
> >         Jelmer
> >
> >
>
>