Publish python-abp on PyPI

[kvas]

Background

Having [python-abp ​https://hg.adblockplus.org/python-abp/file] on ​PyPI would simplify installation for us and for the external users. A few tweaks remain before the publishing and then we need to upload the package to PyPI.

What to change

• Update setup.py:
  • Change version to 0.1.0.
  • Change development status to "4 - Beta".
• Bring test coverage to 100% (it's at 98% now, which is close enough, but 100% is easier to deal with).
• Create a source distribution and a universal wheel (see ​packaging guide).
• Publish the packages (see ​distribution guide).

[abpbot]

A commit referencing this issue has landed:
​Issue 4014 - Publish python-abp on PyPI

[rhowell]

Hi Vasily, I was able to push the changes to python-abp. Now, working on the next steps to publish the package on PyPI and wanted to double-check something with you. The tutorial recommends creating this file structure:

/example_pkg
  /example_pkg
    __init__.py

But we have something more like this:

/python-abp
  /abp
    __init__.py

Should the abp folder be renamed to python-abp?

[sebastian]

Technically, there is no requirement for the repository name, module name (and package name) to be consistent. The python token makes sense in the repository name, providing a distinct context when the repository is listed along other ABP-related repositories (e.g. on hg.adblockplus.org and GitHub), but it would be awkward to import python_abp in Python code.

[kvas]

Replying to sebastian:

Technically, there is no requirement for the repository name, module name (and package name) to be consistent. The python token makes sense in the repository name, providing a distinct context when the repository is listed along other ABP-related repositories (e.g. on hg.adblockplus.org and GitHub), but it would be awkward to import python_abp in Python code.

Yeah, this is the original reasoning for this naming. I think we don't need to rename anything.

[rhowell]

Ok, it's been uploaded and tested on Python 2 & 3 and everything seems to be working. I added Vasily as an owner on PyPI. Any other accounts that should be added?

​https://pypi.org/project/python-abp/

[kvas]

Replying to rhowell:

Ok, it's been uploaded and tested on Python 2 & 3 and everything seems to be working. I added Vasily as an owner on PyPI. Any other accounts that should be added?

​https://pypi.org/project/python-abp/

Awesome! Thank you, Rosie.

It would be useful to create a general eyeo account that Ops would own and add it there as well. This way the maintenance of the package will not depend on the two of us.

[sebastian]

Mind that the whole point of multi-user management (on PyPI) is that you don't need to share a password across multiple people (which is a bad security practice). So shouldn't we rather add individual users (from ops) than creating a shared account?

[matze]

The multi-user management is indeed the way to go here. But in order to ensure access by the company it will act as a single user, meaning eyeo's account (the credentials of which are stored in a system accessible to our administrators only, and meant as a fail-safe in case all the other folks with access to the PyPI packages leave the company for some reason) should just be one among the others.

[kvas]

Makes sense. If there's a fail-safe eyeo account, having just Rosie and me as the other owners should probably be enough.

[rhowell]

Sounds good. Does anyone know the eyeo username that should be added? I wasn't able to find it by browsing around on PyPI.

[rhowell]

Talked with kvas and matze. They said adding the Python developers Vasily, Jon, Tristan and myself should be fine. Closing this ticket.