6 ms·

Bento, a pythonic packaging solution for Python software

9 points by fogus 16y ago

teilo 16y ago
Now this was not a wise naming choice. http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento
- TrevorBurnham 16y ago
  Really? They're completely unrelated products. I don't see any problem with the name.
  - teilo 16y ago
    Yes, and Firebird the open source database is a completely different product than Firebird the open source web browser. Nevertheless, Mozilla changed the name to Firefox because both were software products.
mkramlich 16y ago
anybody used it? any sense of whether it's better than alternatives?
- cdavid 16y ago
  I don't think you should use just now (it is marked as experimental quick clearly :) ). As for the advantages: - support for arbitrary installation scheme, like autoconf (e.g. you don't have to hardcode installation path to install data as with distutils) - data files are easier to deal with - even though it is really raw, the internal tool to build C extensions has automatic dependency handling, md5-based coutent change detection, and supports parallel builds. - it is designed to be hackable. I want to be able to use scons or waf to build complex extensions (I am coming from numpy/scipy, which has particularly strong needs for building C extensions compared to the average python library)
zokier 16y ago
I hate when every language wants to have their own packaging systems. Whats wrong with apt/rpm?
- mhd 16y ago
  You mean .deb or .rpm, apt is a distribution/update tool. The Linux market is fractured enough in this respect, and better not start talking about Mac or Windows, where you can't even properly integrate into a baseline packaging system (because there is none). I think as soon as the major OS suppliers agree on a common packaging/distribution technology, you'll see the language formats vanish. But as long as that doesn't happen, there's no really good alternative to CPAN/gems/eggs etc. Why you'd need multiple formats for one single language is a bit beyond me. Especially in Python, which traditionally abhors Tim Toady.
  - zokier 16y ago
    But why does every language need its own system? They aren't that different from package managers view that a generic solution wouldn't work.
    - mhd 16y ago
      Okay, but you'd have to come up with one, write it in cross-platform C and then have bindings for each of the target languages. And then you'd have lots of people complaining about missing features (or too many features), and quite a lot of them would still use another toolset. Never mind getting everyone to agree on the same repository... Considering the balkanization of even the Linux binary package market, it's not very likely to happen, both for political and technical reasons.
      - zokier 16y ago
        It wouldn't need bindings for every language. Packages usually are just a bunch of files with dependencies and some other metadata. Nothing in that is language-dependent. And not everyone needs to use the same repository either. Again, apt does handle multiple repositories just fine.
Mathnerd314 16y ago
It seems to borrow heavily from Cabal, the Haskell packaging system: http://cournape.github.com/Bento/html/faq.html#is-bento-based-on-existing-tools http://cournape.github.com/Bento/html/faq.html#is-bento-base... It would be nice if they were in fact instances of the same format and not just very similar.
- cdavid 16y ago
  I wished I could have taken exactly the same format, but unfortunately, the cabal format was not defined (no formal grammar) when I started this, and I needed reST support for some fields, which makes it a bit difficult. This also explains why the format is not exactly YAML.

9 points by fogus 16y ago

teilo 16y ago

Now this was not a wise naming choice. http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento

TrevorBurnham 16y ago
Really? They're completely unrelated products. I don't see any problem with the name.
- teilo 16y ago
  Yes, and Firebird the open source database is a completely different product than Firebird the open source web browser. Nevertheless, Mozilla changed the name to Firefox because both were software products.

mkramlich 16y ago

anybody used it? any sense of whether it's better than alternatives?

cdavid 16y ago
I don't think you should use just now (it is marked as experimental quick clearly :) ). As for the advantages: - support for arbitrary installation scheme, like autoconf (e.g. you don't have to hardcode installation path to install data as with distutils) - data files are easier to deal with - even though it is really raw, the internal tool to build C extensions has automatic dependency handling, md5-based coutent change detection, and supports parallel builds. - it is designed to be hackable. I want to be able to use scons or waf to build complex extensions (I am coming from numpy/scipy, which has particularly strong needs for building C extensions compared to the average python library)

zokier 16y ago

I hate when every language wants to have their own packaging systems. Whats wrong with apt/rpm?

mhd 16y ago
You mean .deb or .rpm, apt is a distribution/update tool. The Linux market is fractured enough in this respect, and better not start talking about Mac or Windows, where you can't even properly integrate into a baseline packaging system (because there is none). I think as soon as the major OS suppliers agree on a common packaging/distribution technology, you'll see the language formats vanish. But as long as that doesn't happen, there's no really good alternative to CPAN/gems/eggs etc. Why you'd need multiple formats for one single language is a bit beyond me. Especially in Python, which traditionally abhors Tim Toady.
- zokier 16y ago
  But why does every language need its own system? They aren't that different from package managers view that a generic solution wouldn't work.
  - mhd 16y ago
    Okay, but you'd have to come up with one, write it in cross-platform C and then have bindings for each of the target languages. And then you'd have lots of people complaining about missing features (or too many features), and quite a lot of them would still use another toolset. Never mind getting everyone to agree on the same repository... Considering the balkanization of even the Linux binary package market, it's not very likely to happen, both for political and technical reasons.
    - zokier 16y ago
      It wouldn't need bindings for every language. Packages usually are just a bunch of files with dependencies and some other metadata. Nothing in that is language-dependent. And not everyone needs to use the same repository either. Again, apt does handle multiple repositories just fine.

Mathnerd314 16y ago

It seems to borrow heavily from Cabal, the Haskell packaging system: http://cournape.github.com/Bento/html/faq.html#is-bento-based-on-existing-tools http://cournape.github.com/Bento/html/faq.html#is-bento-base... It would be nice if they were in fact instances of the same format and not just very similar.

cdavid 16y ago
I wished I could have taken exactly the same format, but unfortunately, the cabal format was not defined (no formal grammar) when I started this, and I needed reST support for some fields, which makes it a bit difficult. This also explains why the format is not exactly YAML.