-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Add pypi package #20
Add pypi package #20
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <[email protected]>
Its more pythonic to use __version__ than VERSION. Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <[email protected]>
Make it easier to distribute kirk if it is a pip package. Can be built and installed with 'flit build', 'flit install --symlink' to install it locally. Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <[email protected]>
@acerv Could you please have a look? LGTM. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see the point of the patch, but at the moment pypi supports also setuptools. So we can easily publish kirk by having a LTP account in pypi. The rest comes for free.
action="store_true", | ||
help="Print current version") | ||
action="version", | ||
version=f"%(prog)s, {__version__}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good idea, we can integrate it in a separate patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@roxell maybe just remove the last commit which adds pyproject.toml
and force push? We could merge it already.
And for pypi, I'm not sure how much time it takes. If it's something long term, maybe add an issue for it? It would be followed by doc update pointing to pypi.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | |||
[build-system] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This method is not needed since we already use setuptools.
We don't really want to maintain two packaging systems.
This PR I rejected due to usage of setuptools and cf73030 |
@roxell Feel free to correct me.
@acerv @metan-ucw FYI Anders would appreciate have kirk published via pypi package, that's why this effort.
We have setuptools, but pypi package would allow to run 'pip install kirk' (that
would allow to avoid git dependency).
While I would not be against, sooner or later LTP users will need also ltx, thus pip
is not enough. But still having kirk available for any distro via pip will be useful for kselftests and io_uring.
Also, we could enable Debian package (and other distros) in OBS projects:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/benchmark:ltp:devel/ltx
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/benchmark:ltp:devel/kirk