Add JupyterHub #540
Add JupyterHub #540
Conversation
|
Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service. I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR ( |
|
Should I be setting |
|
|
||
| source: | ||
| fn: pamela-{{ version }}.tar.gz | ||
| url: https://pypi.python.org/packages/43/d1/21403bbafd8729d441ba45e145810f4b7a1f339718827de336cc7246c450/pamela-{{ version }}.tar.gz |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are preferring the pypi.io URLs instead of the new (ugly) ones:
https://pypi.io/packages/source/p/pamela/pamela-{{ version }}.tar.gz
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is better! Fixed to use the pypi.io URLs
LGTM. You can add |
That is a good question. Right now I would say no as our framework builds all the archs and platform, so that option won't get used. Also, I believe that some packages, even though they are pure python, might misbehave when that option is used. (Ping @msarahan I do not know that really happened in |
|
Should be fine here. Suds-jurko was not good because it depended on 2to3 to support both pythons. Not an issue here. Fine to try noarch, but I'd still test very carefully to make sure nothing dumb happens. |
I guess that to really take advantage of that feature we need to change the way we configure our CIs. |
|
I'll leave the noarch frontier for someone more adventurous, then. |
|
|
||
| build: | ||
| number: 0 | ||
| skip: true # [win or py2k] |
|
@minrk are you planning on more changes or should I merge this? |
| build: | ||
| number: 0 | ||
| skip: true # [win or py2k] | ||
| script: pip install --no-deps . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I almost shudder to ask, but using 1 from ( #528 ) is the standard. So, should we change it to python setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed --record=record.txt until the standard changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jakirkham we already have pip install --no-deps . in a few feedstocks and it is virtually the same as python setup.py install --single-version-externally-managed --record=record.txt. I am inclined to leave it as is and start the move to pip slowly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
single-version-externally-managed fails on both of these packages with:
error: option --single-version-externally-managed not recognized
because neither package imports setuptools unconditionally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jakirkham that is 👍 to pip install --no-deps . as we can the same behavior even without setuptools.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ocefpaf, I have no problem changing the standard if something is more effective, but it would be good if we can get everyone to agree. The issue we have now is if everyone is building each package differently it is more likely some issues creep in or we miss something during a review due to all of the acceptable ways to do something. No one wants broken packages.
...because neither package imports setuptools unconditionally.
Ah, ok. Yeah, what we had been doing is a normal install without the options then. Though I agree this is tedious to discover which way to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but it would be good if we can get everyone to agree
Sure we need agreement on important decisions. However, I don't think this is major and we already merged feedstocks with that syntax. So I think this ship has sailed.
The issue we have now is if everyone is building each package differently it is more likely some issues creep in or we miss something during a review due to all of the acceptable ways to do something.
I don't think that is an issue. I am OK with 1-2 different forms for script. And, if anyone is found broken, we have to fix it. Right now we know that pip is not.
No one wants broken packages.
Agreed!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure we need agreement on important decisions. However, I don't think this is major...
I think we have different operating definitions of "major". To me, installation is the most important part. The rest is basically metadata. 😉
...and we already merged feedstocks with that syntax. So I think this ship has sailed.
Perhaps it comes across as I'm being too much of a stickler here. Maybe if it were just that syntax, I might not balk so much. Though we have pip installs that don't use --no-deps and here's another. This one matches 4, which can have some surprising effects. We really need a standard like yesterday and we need to stick with it. Also, we can't be allowing things in because we did it before as there are many wrong things we did before that are out in the wild.
Sorry if this comes off as strong, it is merely a reflection of my concern for the current situation with these script lines.
Only on Python 3, non-Windows
|
Thanks @minrk! |
JupyterHub only runs on Python 3, non-Windows. Hopefully I specified that correctly.
Includes pamela, a dependency of jupyterhub.