Re: Where to get BeautifulSoup--www.crummy.com appears to be down.

[John Nagle]

Mike Driscoll wrote:

Ken,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<ke****************@sbcglobal.netwrote:

>Sadly.

Thanks,
Ken
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? "BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py". It can be downloaded
here:

http://www.crummy.com/software/Beaut...autifulSoup.py

And yes, the site is up.

John Nagle

[Mike Driscoll]

On Apr 23, 11:47*am, John Nagle <[e-mail]:

Mike Driscoll wrote:

Ken,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<[e-mail]:

Sadly.

*Thanks,
*Ken
*--
*http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

* * What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? *"BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py". *It can be downloaded
here:

http://www.crummy.com/software/Beaut...autifulSoup.py

And yes, the site is up.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Nagle

I don't need it and hadn't really planned on doing it, but I got a
request for one.

Besides, newbs don't necessarily know where to stick a module...

Mike

[Steve Holden]

John Nagle wrote:

Mike Driscoll wrote:

>Ken,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<ke****************@sbcglobal.netwrote:

>>Sadly.

Thanks,
Ken
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? "BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py". It can be downloaded
here:

http://www.crummy.com/software/Beaut...autifulSoup.py

And yes, the site is up.

Windows installers for pure Python modules may seem daft to you, but you
are familiar with the Python interpreter's filestore layout. Naive
Windows users, however, would be much happier to run an installer.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Tim Golden]

John Nagle wrote:

Mike Driscoll wrote:

>Ken,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<ke****************@sbcglobal.netwrote:

>>Sadly.

Thanks,
Ken
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? "BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py".

Ummm.. Why does it bother you? Mike seems to be offering a public
service to Windows users: by downloading the .exe, I can double-click
on one file, have the module or package installed (whether it contains
one .py file or twenty or a series of compiled extension modules and
their respective DLLs) and for a bonus it's registered in the system
packages directory[*] and is therefore uninstallable from there.

It's not much different from a Linux distro offering BeautifulSoup via
its module repository: apt-get or yum or whatever. Certainly, if you
prefer, then go to PyPI or to the source address which you helpfully
provided and download the one python source file. I'm sure I don't mind.

TJG
[*] Which isn't, admittedly, what everyone wants to happen...

[John Nagle]

Tim Golden wrote:

John Nagle wrote:

>Mike Driscoll wrote:

>>Ken,

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<ke****************@sbcglobal.netwrote:
Sadly.

Thanks,
Ken
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? "BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py".

Ummm.. Why does it bother you? Mike seems to be offering a public
service to Windows users: by downloading the .exe, I can double-click
on one file, have the module or package installed (whether it contains
one .py file or twenty or a series of compiled extension modules and
their respective DLLs) and for a bonus it's registered in the system
packages directory[*] and is therefore uninstallable from there.

Executing strange executables is risky. One always wonders what
else they install in addition to what they're supposed be installing.

John Nagle

[Mike Driscoll]

On Apr 23, 4:27*pm, John Nagle <[e-mail]:

Tim Golden wrote:

John Nagle wrote:

Mike Driscoll wrote:
Ken,

>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kenneth McDonald
<[e-mail]:
Sadly.

>>*Thanks,
*Ken
*--
*http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

>I've attached the 2.4 version. I also have some Windows binaries for
Beautiful Soup uploaded to my website:
http://www.pythonlibrary.org/python_modules.htm

* *What on earth do you need a "Windows binary" for? *"BeautifulSoup"
is ONE PYTHON SOURCE FILE, "BeautifulSoup.py".

Ummm.. Why does it bother you? Mike seems to be offering a public
service to Windows users: by downloading the .exe, I can double-click
on one file, have the module or package installed (whether it contains
one .py file or twenty or a series of compiled extension modules and
their respective DLLs) and for a bonus it's registered in the system
packages directory[*] and is therefore uninstallable from there.

* * *Executing strange executables is risky. *One always wonders what
else they install in addition to what they're supposed be installing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Nagle

This is a legitimate issue and one I don't know how to solve. It would
be nice to have some kind of verification process, but I'm unaware of
anything affordable. If you have any ideas, feel free to express them.

I hope to get testimonials from developers or pythoneers eventually.
Suggestions are welcome.

Mike

[Paul Boddie]

On 24 Apr, 16:33, Mike Driscoll <[e-mail]:

>
This is a legitimate issue and one I don't know how to solve. It would
be nice to have some kind of verification process, but I'm unaware of
anything affordable. If you have any ideas, feel free to express them.

It'd be interesting (perhaps amusing) to adopt the infrastructure of
one of the GNU/Linux distributions to maintain and distribute packages
for Windows users. For a while, I've been tempted to experiment with
cross-compilers and to try and produce Windows executables, but for
simple Python-only modules, all you'd really need to do to prove the
concept is to develop the client-side Windows software (eg. apt-get
for Windows) which downloads package lists, verifies signatures, and
works out where to put the package contents. Then, you could point
your client at the appropriate sources and start obtaining the
packages, knowing that there is some level of authenticity in the
software you're getting.

Of course, a lot of this could be more easily done with Cygwin, even
if you disregard Cygwin's own installer, but I imagine that Windows
users want the "native" experience.

Paul

[Mike Driscoll]

On Apr 24, 10:15*am, Paul Boddie <[e-mail]:

On 24 Apr, 16:33, Mike Driscoll <[e-mail]:

This is a legitimate issue and one I don't know how to solve. It would
be nice to have some kind of verification process, but I'm unaware of
anything affordable. If you have any ideas, feel free to express them.

It'd be interesting (perhaps amusing) to adopt the infrastructure of
one of the GNU/Linux distributions to maintain and distribute packages
for Windows users. For a while, I've been tempted to experiment with
cross-compilers and to try and produce Windows executables, but for
simple Python-only modules, all you'd really need to do to prove the
concept is to develop the client-side Windows software (eg. apt-get
for Windows) which downloads package lists, verifies signatures, and
works out where to put the package contents. Then, you could point
your client at the appropriate sources and start obtaining the
packages, knowing that there is some level of authenticity in the
software you're getting.

Of course, a lot of this could be more easily done with Cygwin, even
if you disregard Cygwin's own installer, but I imagine that Windows
users want the "native" experience.

Paul

I do download all my code from either PyPI or the extension
developer's website. And I have experimented with MingW, but I haven't
had a lot of luck with it. Of course, part of my problem is that I'm
using a VM with MingW on it and I really need to just upgrade my dev
box.

Creating a client for this sort of thing does sound cool. Something
else for me to think about anyway...

Mike

[Paul Rubin]

Paul Boddie <pa**@boddie.org.ukwrites:

simple Python-only modules, all you'd really need to do to prove the
concept is to develop the client-side Windows software (eg. apt-get
for Windows) which downloads package lists, verifies signatures, and
works out where to put the package contents. ...

I thought the Windows "solution" to this was Authenticode, which is a
scheme for signing executables against certificates similar to those
used on SSL web sites. Of course there's been at least one notorious
forgery, but typical Linux distro repositories are probably not all
that secure either.

In the case of a pure Python program like Beautiful Soup, I certainly
think any installation needing running code should be done by
distutils included in the Python distro.

[Mike Driscoll]

On Apr 24, 1:34*pm, Paul Rubin <http://[e-mail]:

Paul Boddie <[e-mail]:

simple Python-only modules, all you'd really need to do to prove the
concept is to develop the client-side Windows software (eg. apt-get
for Windows) which downloads package lists, verifies signatures, and
works out where to put the package contents. ...

I thought the Windows "solution" to this was Authenticode, which is a
scheme for signing executables against certificates similar to those
used on SSL web sites. *Of course there's been at least one notorious
forgery, but typical Linux distro repositories are probably not all
that secure either.

In the case of a pure Python program like Beautiful Soup, I certainly
think any installation needing running code should be done by
distutils included in the Python distro.

I only create binaries using the bdist_wininst or bdist_msi commands
for the extensions. If you think adding a code signature will make the
binaries more acceptable, I'm not against it. Certificates from Comodo
don't cost too much...

Mike

[John Nagle]

Paul Rubin wrote:

Paul Boddie <pa**@boddie.org.ukwrites:

>simple Python-only modules, all you'd really need to do to prove the
concept is to develop the client-side Windows software (eg. apt-get
for Windows) which downloads package lists, verifies signatures, and
works out where to put the package contents. ...

I thought the Windows "solution" to this was Authenticode, which is a
scheme for signing executables against certificates similar to those
used on SSL web sites. Of course there's been at least one notorious
forgery, but typical Linux distro repositories are probably not all
that secure either.

In the case of a pure Python program like Beautiful Soup, I certainly
think any installation needing running code should be done by
distutils included in the Python distro.

Yes.

Perl has CPAN, which is reasonably comprehensive and presents modules
in a uniform way. If you need a common Perl module that's not in the
Perl distro, it's probably in CPAN. "Installing a new module can be as
simple as typing perl -MCPAN -e 'install Chocolate::Belgian'."
So Perl has exactly that.

Python's Cheese Shop is just a list of links to packages
elsewhere. There's no uniformity, no standard installation, no
standard uninstallation, and no standard version control.

John Nagle

[Florian Diesch]

John Nagle <na***@animats.comwrote:

Perl has CPAN, which is reasonably comprehensive and presents modules
in a uniform way. If you need a common Perl module that's not in the
Perl distro, it's probably in CPAN. "Installing a new module can be as
simple as typing perl -MCPAN -e 'install Chocolate::Belgian'."
So Perl has exactly that.

Python's Cheese Shop is just a list of links to packages
elsewhere. There's no uniformity, no standard installation, no
standard uninstallation, and no standard version control.

Python has easy_install
Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------