There should be a single commit per package added. Also remove periods at end of descriptions in meta attribute.

as you've added quite a bunch of new python packages: do you intend to maintain these packages in the future (if so, please add the meta.maintainers field as well) :)

@Ma27 Ah, thanks for reminding me >.<

Requested changes made. :)

@GrahamcOfBorg build python27Packages.boltons python27Packages.face python27Packages.glom python37Packages.boltons python37Packages.face python37Packages.glom

Success on aarch64-linux (full log)

Attempted: python27Packages.boltons, python27Packages.face, python27Packages.glom, python37Packages.boltons, python37Packages.face, python37Packages.glom

stripping (with command strip and flags -S) in /nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/lib  /nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/bin
patching script interpreter paths in /nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1
checking for references to /build in /nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1...
wrapping `/nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/bin/glom'...
/nix/store/p7bsk9cmn4byprmf8gf3rl190b89h0y2-python2.7-boltons-18.0.1
/nix/store/jy17wagvjdhhw72wssx4ky2a3xdx0jzc-python2.7-face-0.1.0
/nix/store/xsq82h3gwix600f6n9majb8img65ab5v-python2.7-glom-18.3.1
/nix/store/drv07map13dys0qqa3iq3wjz2mfldwza-python3.7-boltons-18.0.1
/nix/store/i5zfjj2j0fg8h9bd799v37mmzsy679kn-python3.7-face-0.1.0
/nix/store/zcjn8ncdizaxid60kg570xq5cr99dh9v-python3.7-glom-18.3.1

Success on x86_64-linux (full log)

Attempted: python27Packages.boltons, python27Packages.face, python27Packages.glom, python37Packages.boltons, python37Packages.face, python37Packages.glom

stripping (with command strip and flags -S) in /nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/lib  /nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/bin
patching script interpreter paths in /nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1
checking for references to /build in /nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1...
wrapping `/nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1/bin/glom'...
/nix/store/rdw80zngq7r51hrrc5v8a7v0rhvzd72b-python2.7-boltons-18.0.1
/nix/store/jpyxgdwhniixch3cqq9g922vrsg8pfkj-python2.7-face-0.1.0
/nix/store/c7rin0hxwfsy9kfr841a8cmjqx45diva-python2.7-glom-18.3.1
/nix/store/ycpdwiw9siwbhwc7cmzk5a2s90yqinrp-python3.7-boltons-18.0.1
/nix/store/zrk1v24zhjpbd1qpwgpvmqg45s4h20aa-python3.7-face-0.1.0
/nix/store/gs7vbfg6bphrqpw7bgwvlac3vzamlkxw-python3.7-glom-18.3.1

glom is also a cli tool. Is that meant to be used exclusively for certain purposes?

If so, we need to add an attribute to all-packages.nix using toPythonApplication.
A better explanation can be seen in the python section of the nixpkgs manual.

Additionally I'm seeing Ran 0 tests in 0.000s in the output when building boltons.
So I don't think tests are being ran.

Additionally I'm seeing Ran 0 tests in 0.000s in the output when building boltons.
So I don't think tests are being ran.

The version of boltons on PyPI doesn't include any tests (or the requirements file required to even run the test command).

Additionally I'm seeing Ran 0 tests in 0.000s in the output when building boltons.
So I don't think tests are being ran.

The version of boltons on PyPI doesn't include any tests (or the requirements file required to even run the test command).

It would be preferred, in this case, to use the github repo, which will have tests.
Using fetchFromGitHub.

Is that wise? Packages that rely on the PyPI version won't be able to use it as a dependency…

Is that wise? Packages that rely on the PyPI version won't be able to use it as a dependency…

This happens for relatively many packages. During the setup.py install phase the version field in setup.py of all packages in $PYTHONPATH will be parsed and checked if they're compatible.

Or am I misunderstanding your concern?

All requested changes made! How's it looking?

Build fails because 2b9283a introduced a different version of glom in the meantime (as an application, but without the Python library). Please advise.

Scratch that, it's actually a different application, we just have a name conflict.

Have renamed glom to glom-db pending input from @jtojnar.

Looking at repology glom package name seems to be used for the DB tool. I would prefer to remain consistent with other distros.

I'd prefer it too, but we have strict rules on naming Python packages and less strict guidelines on other applications. I'm open to alternative suggestions though.

I'm also okay with not packaging the application (at least until this is resolved), but perhaps @worldofpeace would be unhappy with that solution?

I'm also okay with not packaging the application (at least until this is resolved), but perhaps @worldofpeace would be unhappy with that solution?

This is glom's docs on their cli tool https://glom.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cli.html

glom’s CLI is still under construction. Definitely usable and useful, but glom is a library first, and if you’re reading this, the CLI should not be considered stable.

I honestly don't think it's that important at this point to have it as an application in all-packages.nix.
@Ma27 Any thoughts?

I honestly don't think it's that important at this point to have it as an application in all-packages.nix.
@Ma27 Any thoughts?

As the package states to be a "library first" I personally think that no top-level alias is needed, especially if it's still "under construction" (an "unstable" CLI is acceptable IMHO, but "under construction" is even worse).

IIRC the top-level alias makes sense if you want to package an application which happens to be python based and is not intended to be a library, but correct me if I'm wrong :D

Okay, removed the application.

@GrahamcOfBorg build pythonPackages.boltons python3Packages.boltons pythonPackages.face python3Packages.face pythonPackages.glom python3Packages.glom

I think this is good, I'm going for it.