Peter Cock | 2 Apr 15:43 2011

Re: 1.57 release plans

Thanks Brad :)

http://news.open-bio.org/news/2011/04/biopython-1-57-released/

I'll get the Windows installers done on Monday.

Peter
Peter Cock | 4 Apr 10:57 2011

Re: 1.57 release plans

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Brad :)
>
> http://news.open-bio.org/news/2011/04/biopython-1-57-released/
>
> I'll get the Windows installers done on Monday.
>
> Peter

They're up. I included one for Python 2.4 put stuck 'unsupported'
at the end of its filename.

I'm wondering if we should make a couple for Python 3.1 and 3.2
but clearly mark them as alpha quality? Perhaps a little branch
on github just to change the version to 1.57a and edit the setup.py
description?

Speaking of which, I found our first bug: I didn't add do2to3.py
to the manifest, so it isn't included in the tar ball or zip. This
means you can't install from a source release under Python 3.
Not a big issue as we haven't claimed to support Python 3 yet:
https://github.com/biopython/biopython/commit/4b1cc1e501a136188c41c1345c1d22ceb11cdb0c

Peter
Brad Chapman | 4 Apr 14:51 2011

Re: 1.57 release plans

Peter;

[Windows installers]
> They're up. I included one for Python 2.4 put stuck 'unsupported'
> at the end of its filename.

Awesome, thanks much.

> I'm wondering if we should make a couple for Python 3.1 and 3.2
> but clearly mark them as alpha quality? Perhaps a little branch
> on github just to change the version to 1.57a and edit the setup.py
> description?

This is a good idea and could help us get a sense of if people are
using Python 3 yet.

> Speaking of which, I found our first bug: I didn't add do2to3.py
> to the manifest, so it isn't included in the tar ball or zip. This
> means you can't install from a source release under Python 3.
> Not a big issue as we haven't claimed to support Python 3 yet:
> https://github.com/biopython/biopython/commit/4b1cc1e501a136188c41c1345c1d22ceb11cdb0c

Whoops. Should we freshen up the tarballs with this or wait until
the next release?

For your manifest fix, we should add do2to3.py to the MANIFEST.in
instead of checking in the MANIFEST directly, since the MANIFEST is
generated during building the release.

Brad
(Continue reading)

Peter Cock | 4 Apr 15:10 2011

Re: 1.57 release plans

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Brad Chapman <chapmanb <at> 50mail.com> wrote:
> Peter;
>
> [Windows installers]
>> They're up. I included one for Python 2.4 put stuck 'unsupported'
>> at the end of its filename.
>
> Awesome, thanks much.
>
>> I'm wondering if we should make a couple for Python 3.1 and 3.2
>> but clearly mark them as alpha quality? Perhaps a little branch
>> on github just to change the version to 1.57a and edit the setup.py
>> description?
>
> This is a good idea and could help us get a sense of if people are
> using Python 3 yet.
>
>> Speaking of which, I found our first bug: I didn't add do2to3.py
>> to the manifest, so it isn't included in the tar ball or zip. This
>> means you can't install from a source release under Python 3.
>> Not a big issue as we haven't claimed to support Python 3 yet:
>> https://github.com/biopython/biopython/commit/4b1cc1e501a136188c41c1345c1d22ceb11cdb0c
>
> Whoops. Should we freshen up the tarballs with this or wait until
> the next release?

I'm tempted to leave it as is. Anyone keen to use Biopython from
source under Python 3 can try from git.

> For your manifest fix, we should add do2to3.py to the MANIFEST.in
(Continue reading)


Gmane