Re: [RFC] Improve Python package quality

[Lars-Dominik Braun <lars@6xq.net>]

Hi Hartmut,

> this is a good idea. (Since you where mentioning setuptools, I first was 
> afraid your solution would be tightened to setuptools, but it is not. 
> Well done!)
afaik pkg_resources is technically a part of setuptools, although it is
distributed with Python.

> This comment should go behind the line of code, as it only related to 
> that single line.
> […]
> I suggest putting the comments into the python source. This would allow 
> to indent them according the the python code, which would make it easier 
> to understand. This would also allow to use a single multi-line 
> guile-string, which allows to easiyl copy the script out and in from the 
> guile-source for testing it.
> […]
> Please follow PEP8 (no space before opening parentheses) - also at other 
> places.
> […]
> Add `end=""`, thus the "result" can be printed on the same line.
> Print result terse, on same line, without repeating the name:
You’re right, all fixed. I’ll send a non-hacky patch (with test-cases!)
to guix-patches@ for review once we’ve figured out a path to merge it. I
guess it would be best to fix packages directly on master and merge this
new phase to core-updates? Shall I apply for commit access or can you
(or Tobias?) review and “proxy” required changes? Right now I have fixes
for about 10 packges, but there will be more.

> Would is be better to use mkdtemp here to ge a fresh, empty directory?
I tried that, but mkdtemp! is not available and I’m not confident enough
to add that module to the closure. Any ideas?

Cheers,
Lars