Navigation Menu

Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pythonPackages: fix missing PyPI references #60147

Closed
wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

marsam
Copy link
Contributor

@marsam marsam commented Apr 24, 2019

Motivation for this change
  • pythonPackages.pyev: drop: PyPI package removed
  • pythonPackages.python3pika: drop: unmaintained
  • pythonPackages.area53: drop: PyPI package removed
  • pythonPackages.eggdeps: fix PyPI name
  • pythonPackages.mp2: fix PyPI name
  • pythonPackages.mrbob: fix PyPI name
  • pythonPackages.pyaudio: fix PyPI name
  • pythonPackages.pymysqlsa: fix PyPI name
  • pythonPackages.pystache: fix pname
  • pythonPackages.setproctitle: fix PyPI name

PD. elpy package was also removed from PyPI jorgenschaefer/elpy#1583, I'm going to remove it in another PR

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@marsam marsam requested a review from FRidh as a code owner April 24, 2019 07:34
@marsam marsam changed the title Fix python packages pythonPackages: fix missing PyPI references Apr 24, 2019
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from Mic92 April 24, 2019 07:55
Copy link
Member

@dotlambda dotlambda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

pnames should adhere to PEP 0503, e.g. tl-eggdeps instead of tl.eggdeps. If necessary, the PyPI pname can be specified inside fetchPypi.

@dotlambda
Copy link
Member

@FRidh should definitely have a look at this.

@teto
Copy link
Member

teto commented Apr 24, 2019

pnames should adhere to PEP 0503, e.g. tl-eggdeps instead of tl.eggdeps. If necessary, the PyPI pname can be specified inside fetchPypi.

Isn't dot valid according to the link you mentioned ? This PEP references the concept of a "normalized" project name. As per PEP 426 the only valid characters in a name are the ASCII alphabet, ASCII numbers, ., -, and _

@dotlambda
Copy link
Member

pnames should adhere to PEP 0503, e.g. tl-eggdeps instead of tl.eggdeps. If necessary, the PyPI pname can be specified inside fetchPypi.

Isn't dot valid according to the link you mentioned ? This PEP references the concept of a "normalized" project name. As per PEP 426 the only valid characters in a name are the ASCII alphabet, ASCII numbers, ., -, and _

No, the PEP states

The name should be lowercased with all runs of the characters ., -, or _ replaced with a single - character.

@marsam
Copy link
Contributor Author

marsam commented Apr 24, 2019

pnames should adhere to PEP 0503

I didn't know that. Fixed. thanks!

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Apr 25, 2019

The attribute name (e.g. foo in case of pythonPackages.foo) needs to be normalized. This is documented in the manual. The pname is typically written how it is on PyPI, but in lowercase. This is not documented. The pname that is passed to fetchPyPi needs to match to the name of the file that is downloaded. That's why it is sometimes preferred to keep the pname in buildPythonPackage all lowercase, but in fetchPyPi with different casing.

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

@marsam this has bit rotted quite a lot. Did you want to salvage this PR?

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Sep 6, 2019

I've rebased and pushed it to staging. Thanks for the reminder @jonringer

@FRidh FRidh closed this Sep 6, 2019
@jonringer jonringer mentioned this pull request Sep 6, 2019
10 tasks
@marsam marsam mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2019
10 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants