You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2011-06-22 01:50:53
- Basu
- Member
- From: Cornell University
- Registered: 2006-12-15
- Posts: 296
- Website
Use easy_install or AUR/pacman?
Hey all,
I'm starting on a pretty complicated Python project that's going to be using a bunch of external libraries. What's considered the Arch way of managing libraries and such? Should I use the language-specific option (easy_install in this case, gem in case of Ruby) or should I stick with pacman and the AUR?
The Bytebaker -- Computer science is not a science and it's not about computers
Check out my open source software at Github
Offline
#2 2011-06-22 04:39:22
- joshdmiller
- Member
- From: California
- Registered: 2010-04-25
- Posts: 51
- Website
Re: Use easy_install or AUR/pacman?
This is a question of preference, but I would do both:
1. Generate a pypi package for your project to manage python dependencies (on Arch, I prefer python-pip to easy_install).
2. Create a PKGBUILD with python-pip as a build dependency that installs the project code using it, also including as runtime dependencies the various python modules that are available in the supported and community repositories.
Last edited by joshdmiller (2011-06-22 04:40:26)
Offline
#3 2011-06-23 14:25:41
- Basu
- Member
- From: Cornell University
- Registered: 2006-12-15
- Posts: 296
- Website
Re: Use easy_install or AUR/pacman?
I'm concerned more for packages that I'm using myself -- if I need a lib that's in AUR and also available via easy_install (or pip) is there a reason for using one over the other?
The Bytebaker -- Computer science is not a science and it's not about computers
Check out my open source software at Github
Offline
#4 2011-06-23 16:44:54
- joshdmiller
- Member
- From: California
- Registered: 2010-04-25
- Posts: 51
- Website
Re: Use easy_install or AUR/pacman?
Sorry, misunderstood.
I have run into file collision issues by using easy_install when a package I later install lists one of the libs as a dependency. I always try to use the aur versions to avoid this. Same with pear, pecl, and cpan.
Offline
#5 2011-07-02 18:49:19
- Mr.Elendig
- #archlinux@freenode channel op
- From: The intertubes
- Registered: 2004-11-07
- Posts: 4,097
Re: Use easy_install or AUR/pacman?
Hey all,
I'm starting on a pretty complicated Python project that's going to be using a bunch of external libraries. What's considered the Arch way of managing libraries and such? Should I use the language-specific option (easy_install in this case, gem in case of Ruby) or should I stick with pacman and the AUR?
For installing stuff:
Don't use easy_install, it is quite bad.
Either use makepkg/pacman, or if you are doing virtualenv, pip
For distributing your own stuff:
Use distribute for 2.x or mixed 2.x and 3.x projects, and distutils for 3.x projects.
Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2011-07-02 18:51:37)
Evil #archlinux@libera.chat channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest
Offline
Pages: 1