From: Matthias B. <ba...@ir...> - 2004-11-06 14:15:46
|
Hi, as there haven't been much changes to the code lately, I'd suggest to do the final steps so that we can do an official release. I think we have already agreed on using the same license than ODE itself. I took the copyright notice from an ODE source file and slightly modified it to: # Python Open Dynamics Engine Wrapper # Copyright (C) 2004 PyODE developers (see file AUTHORS) # All rights reserved. # # This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the terms of EITHER: # (1) The GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free # Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at # your option) any later version. The text of the GNU Lesser # General Public License is included with this library in the # file LICENSE.TXT. # (2) The BSD-style license that is included with this library in # the file LICENSE-BSD.TXT. # # This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the files # LICENSE.TXT and LICENSE-BSD.TXT for more details. I don't know what a copyright notice has to look like if there's more than just one author. But it looked reasonable to me just to refer to the AUTHORS file instead of listing everyone here. So does everyone agree with that? If so, I'll add this to our source files. (are there any objections if I add me, Brett and Bernie to the AUTHORS file?) By the way, should we remove the .TXT suffix from the license files? Or should be add .TXT to our existing files? (I'd slightly tend towards the suffix as it makes reading a bit easier for the Windows people, but I also have no problems if they are not present.) Which files should be kept? What will be in the NEWS file (except for the giant monkeys taking over the United Nations summit? :) Isn't that somewhat the same than the ChangeLog? And I suppose the file COPYING will be replaced by the two license files from ODE, right? Another issue: What kind of version numbering scheme will we use? And what is the current version? In my previous versions I just used the ODE version that I was using (it's another thing that I got that mixed up). But meanwhile, I don't think that's such a good idea as the version might differ on our platforms. So I'd just vote for using 1.0 (or 1.0.0) for this release and then increase the version as appropriate. Is there anything else I forgot? - Matthias - |
From: Matthias B. <ba...@ir...> - 2004-11-09 22:41:42
|
Timothy Stranex wrote: > From a purely aesthetic (unix-biased) viewpoint, I think it looks better > without the .TXT; but, if it makes it easier on the Windows guys I don't > have any problem with adding it. As the files were already there without the suffix I left it that way and removed the suffices from the license files instead before checking them in. > At the moment, setup.py creates source distributions with the following > files: ode.c, setup.py, README and the xode directory. The problem with > this is that when run from a source distribution, setup.py tries to > create a new ode.c from non-existing pyrex sources. > > If we don't want to require our users to install pyrex then setup.py > must be modified so that it if pyrex sources are not included, it uses > the existing ode.c. I added the file Manifest.in which tells the distutils what (additional) files to add to the source distribution. Now the Pyrex sources are also included (and the examples and test directories). Additionally, I modified the setup script so that Pyrex is only called when the *.pyx files are newer than ode.c. This means, anybody who grabs the source archive and just builds the sources without modifying the *.pyx files won't need Pyrex. By the way, when I updated the setup script I noticed that there's the "author_email" parameter which, I believe, is required once the package is added to the Python Package Index (PyPI, http://www.python.org/pypi). In that case, I'd vote for Timothy as our "PyODE representative" as he's also running the web site. Timothy, would you agree with that? (i.e. that your email appears in the "author_email" field? And if so, which one? (I just noticed that in your posting you were using a different email address than the one on your web site)) - Matthias - |
From: Timothy S. <ti...@st...> - 2004-11-16 06:56:43
|
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 00:42, Matthias Baas wrote: > By the way, when I updated the setup script I noticed that there's the=20 > "author_email" parameter which, I believe, is required once the package=20 > is added to the Python Package Index (PyPI, http://www.python.org/pypi). > In that case, I'd vote for Timothy as our "PyODE representative" as he's=20 > also running the web site. > Timothy, would you agree with that? (i.e. that your email appears in the=20 > "author_email" field? And if so, which one? (I just noticed that in your=20 > posting you were using a different email address than the one on your=20 > web site)) That's fine with me. My current e-mail address is ti...@st.... I've added it to setup.py. --=20 Timothy Stranex <ti...@st...> |