That version number should be fine, can you tell me how you generated that error? The globaleaks/GlobaLeaks repository doesn't seem to have a setup.py

from txsocksx.

Hi! Thanks for the ticket.

However, the version 1.13.0.0rc2 is valid according to PEP 386; see http://codepad.org/geqxJCbn. The problem here is that distutils.version does not validate against PEP 386. If you want to make your project depend on a newer version of txsocksx, I would recommend either:

1. Use setuptools instead of distutils for dependency management, since setuptools knows how to parse version numbers like this.
2. Instead of depending specifically on releases newer than a particular release candidate (if you're using distutils 'requires'), say >1.0.0. I would hope that that would match 1.13.0.0rc2.

from txsocksx.

mmm i dont think so @dstufft / @habnabit:

PEP 383 states: " version number consists of two or three dot-separated numeric components, with an optional "pre-release" tag on the end. " and also expose some examples of fine and bad versions and i think this is one of the bad one.

can you please reverify?

you are strongly correct with this:

• we are using distutils
• it's correct to fix with > 1

by the way i've fixed using:

######################################################################
# Temporary fix to https://github.com/globaleaks/GlobaLeaks/issues/572
#                  https://github.com/habnabit/txsocksx/issues/5
from distutils import version
version.StrictVersion = version.LooseVersion
######################################################################

this is our setup.py: https://github.com/globaleaks/GLBackend/blob/master/setup.py

from txsocksx.

I'm sure it's fine via pep 386 and the newer pep 440

The problem us StrictVersion predates the pep and few people notice because the requires keyword (basically the only place strict version is used) is basically useless. It doesn't list things you install from PyPI it lists things you actually import in your code. Nothing uses it except to display on PyPI.

You probably want the setuptools install_requires keyword.

On Sep 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Giovanni Pellerano [email protected] wrote:

mmm i dont think so @dstufft / @habnabit:

PEP 383 states: " version number consists of two or three dot-separated numeric components, with an optional "pre-release" tag on the end. " and also expose some examples of fine and bad versions and i think this is one of the bad one.

can you please reverify?

you are strongly correct with this:

we are using distutils
it's correct to fix with > 1
by the way i've fixed using:
######################################################################

Temporary fix to globaleaks/GlobaLeaks#572

#5

from distutils import version
version.StrictVersion = version.LooseVersion
######################################################################

this is our setup.py: https://github.com/globaleaks/GLBackend/blob/master/setup.py

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

from txsocksx.

ok thanks =)

from txsocksx.

@evilaliv3 can you confirm that the issue is resolved for you now?

The thing you're quoting about "two or three dot-separated numeric components" is PEP 386 itself quoting the StrictVersion docstring. It is not describing what PEP 386 allows. This is the format that PEP 386 describes:

N.N[.N]+[{a|b|c|rc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN]

from txsocksx.

ok so you are saying that you are not using the strict format? i'm correct?

if yes, yes i'm currently fine with:
version.StrictVersion = version.LooseVersion
and we will probably change to setuptools in future.

you can close the thicket for me.

from txsocksx.

"Loose" and "strict" are artifacts of how distutils used to do versions,
and aren't a part of PEP 386. The version 1.13.0.0rc2 is a PEP
386-compliant version which doesn't validate against the old distutils
StrictVersion.

I'll go ahead and close the ticket.

from txsocksx.

perfect :) really thanks for the fast response and technical analysis

from txsocksx.