Skip to content
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

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

roxell
Copy link
Contributor

@roxell roxell commented Jun 12, 2024

@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

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]>
@pevik
Copy link
Member

pevik commented Jul 7, 2024

@acerv Could you please have a look? LGTM.

Copy link
Collaborator

@acerv acerv left a 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__}")
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Copy link
Member

@pevik pevik Jul 8, 2024

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I pushed a new PR for the the patches @pevik
#23

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
[build-system]
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@acerv
Copy link
Collaborator

acerv commented Jul 26, 2024

This PR I rejected due to usage of setuptools and cf73030

@acerv acerv closed this Jul 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants