Unified setup.py #1129
Unified setup.py #1129
Conversation
|
Heads-up @takluyver, a conflict popped up on this one at some point, so it's in need of a rebase. I'll review the code next, but wanted to let you know. |
|
Regarding the problem with older pythons: don't worry. If people can't read instructions on the website about our minimally supported python version, it's their problem. We need to lower the cost to us of maintenance as we move more towards python3, so I'm OK with this approach. I doubt in practice it will be a problem for anyone. |
| from setup3 import main | ||
| # This check is also made in IPython/__init__, don't forget to update both when | ||
| # changing Python version requirements. | ||
| #~ if sys.version[0:3] < '2.6': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the point in leaving this code with #~ comment markers. If it's gone, it's gone.
|
OK, other than the need for a rebase and some minor inline comments, this is good to go. We'll test it out well in the RC-release phase, when we'll do installs on multiple boxes. |
|
Sounds good, let's leave it for 0.13... |
|
Hey @takluyver, this one is in need of a quick rebase before we can merge it... |
|
Rebased. |
|
OK, otherwise it seems like we'd already gone over the ideas here and done the review. So I'm merging, thanks! |
Unify the setup.py file for Python 2 and Python 3.
Unify the setup.py file for Python 2 and Python 3.
This unifies the setup.py file for Python 2 and Python 3. A bit of reworking was needed so the setup code can run in Python 2 or 3. This may well need some cleanup - I just messed around with it until it worked.
Note that GH is doing a poor job of showing the changes, because the file that was setup2.py has replaced setup.py. Here is a clearer picture of the code changes, generated with
git diff HEAD~2 HEAD~1: https://gist.github.com/1449027 (that excludes moving the files in the subsequent commit).This should close #1119.
One downside: trying to install in older versions of Python will now fail with a SyntaxError, rather than a descriptive message, because we're using
from __future__ import print_function. I can't see any neat way round that, although there's probably a hackish way if we think the message is important enough.