Develop Reference

Debian build package: Add python virtualenv into dpkg-buildpackage to be uploaded to launchpad

I would like to pack a python program and ship it in a deb package.
For reasons (I know in 99% it is bad practice) I want to ship the program in a python virtual environment within a debian package.
I know I can do this using dh-virtualenv. This works great - generally no problem.
But the problem arises when I want to upload this to launchpad. Uploading to launchpad means uploading a source package. In terms of dh-virtualenv a source package is the package description, where the virtualenv has not been created, yet.
What happens when I upload this to launchpad is, that the package will not build, since the dh-virtualenv which is executed during the build process on launchpad will try to install python modules into the virtualenv, which means installing these from the PyPI, which will not work, since launchpad does not allow external network access.
So basically there are two possible solutions:
Approach A
Prepare the virtualenv and somehow incorporate it into the source package and having the dh build process simply "move" this prepared virtualenv to its end location. This could work with virtualenv --relocatable. BUT the relocation strips the utf-8 marker at the beginning of all python scripts, rendering all python scripts in the virtualenv broken.
Apporach B
Somehow cache all necessary python packages in the source package and have dh_virtualenv install from the cache instead of from PyPI.
This seems like to be doable with pip2pi, but certain experiements show, that it will not install packages, although they are located in the local package index.
Both approaches seem a bit clumsy and prone to errors.
What do you think of this?
What are your experiences?
What would you recommend?

Python Libraries

I'm in desperate need of a cross platform framework as I have vast numbers of .NET products that I'm trying to port to Linux. I have started to work with Python/pyQt and the standard library and all was going well until I try to import non-standard libraries. I'm hearing about pip and easy_install and I'm completely confused about this.
My products need to ship with everything required to execute them, so in the .NET world I simply package my DLLs (or licensed DLLs) with my product.
As a test bed I'm trying to import this library called requests: https://github.com/kennethreitz/requests
I've got an __init__.py file and the library source in my program directory but it isn't working. Please tell me that there is a simple way to include libraries without needing any kind of extra package installer.

I would suggest you start by familiarizing yourself with python packages (see the distutils docs. Pip is simply a manager that install packages directly from the internet repository, so that you don't need to manually go and download them. So for, example, as stated under "Installing" on the requests homepage, you simply run pip install requests in a terminal, without manually downloading anything.
Packaging your product is a different story, and the way you do it depends on the target system. On windows, the easiest might be to create an installer using NSIS which will install all dependencies. You might also want to use cx-freeze to pull all the dependencies (including the python interpreter) into a single package.
On linux, many of the dependencies will already be including in most distributions. so you should just list them as requirements when creating your package (e.g. deb for ubuntu). Other dependencies might not be included in the distro's repo, but you can still list them as requirements in setup.py.
I can't really comment on Mac, since I've never used python on one, but I think that it would be similar to the linux approach.

How to easily distribute Python software that has Python module dependencies? Frustrations in Python package installation on Unix

My goal is to distribute a Python package that has several other widely used Python packages as dependencies. My package depends on well written, Pypi-indexed packages like pandas, scipy and numpy, and specifies in the setup.py that certain versions or higher of these are needed, e.g. "numpy >= 1.5".
I found that it's immensely frustrating and nearly impossible for Unix savvy users who are not experts in Python packaging (even if they know how to write Python) to install a package like mine, even when using what are supposed to be easy to use package managers. I am wondering if there is an alternative to this painful process that someone can offer, or if my experience just reflects the very difficult current state of Python packaging and distribution.
Suppose users download your package onto their system. Most will try to install it "naively", using something like:
$ python setup.py install
Since if you google instructions on installing Python packages, this is usually what comes up. This will fail for the vast majority of users, since most do not have root access on their Unix/Linux servers. With more searching, they will discover the "--prefix" option and try:
$ python setup.py install --prefix=/some/local/dir
Since the users are not aware of the intricacies of Python packaging, they will pick an arbitrary directory as an argument to --prefix, e.g. "~/software/mypackage/". It will not be a cleanly curated directory where all other Python packages reside, because again, most users are not aware of these details. If they install another package "myotherpackage", they might pass it "~/software/myotherpackage", and you can imagine how down the road this will lead to frustrating hacking of PYTHONPATH and other complications.
Continuing with the installation process, the call to "setup.py install" with "--prefix" will also fail once users try to use the package, even though it appeared to have been installed correctly, since one of the dependencies might be missing (e.g. pandas, scipy or numpy) and a package manager is not used. They will try to install these packages individually. Even if successful, the packages will inevitably not be in the PYTHONPATH due to the non-standard directories given to "--prefix" and patient users will dabble with modifications of their PYTHONPATH to get the dependencies to be visible.
At this stage, users might be told by a Python savvy friend that they should use a package manager like "easy_install", the mainstream manager, to install the software and have dependencies taken care of. After installing "easy_install", which might be difficult, they will try:
$ easy_install setup.py
This too will fail, since users again do not typically have permission to install software globally on production Unix servers. With more reading, they will learn about the "--user" option, and try:
$ easy_install setup.py --user
They will get the error:
usage: easy_install [options] requirement_or_url ...
or: easy_install --help
error: option --user not recognized
They will be extremely puzzled why their easy_install does not have the --user option where there are clearly pages online describing the option. They might try to upgrade their easy_install to the latest version and find that it still fails.
If they continue and consult a Python packaging expert, they will discover that there are two versions of easy_install, both named "easy_install" so as to maximize confusion, but one part of "distribute" and the other part of "setuptools". It happens to be that only the "easy_install" of "distribute" supports "--user" and the vast majority of servers/sys admins install "setuptools"'s easy_install and so local installation will not be possible. Keep in mind that these distinctions between "distribute" and "setuptools" are meaningless and hard to understand for people who are not experts in Python package management.
At this point, I would have lost 90% of even the most determined, savvy and patient users who try to install my software package -- and rightfully so! They wanted to install a piece of software that happened to be written in Python, not to become experts in state of the art Python package distribution, and this is far too confusing and complex. They will give up and be frustrated at the time wasted.
The tiny minority of users who continue on and ask more Python experts will be told that they ought to use pip/virtualenv instead of easy_install. Installing pip and virtualenv and figuring out how these tools work and how they are different from the conventional "python setup.py" or "easy_install" calls is in itself time consuming and difficult, and again too much to ask from users who just wanted to install a simple piece of Python software and use it. Even those who pursue this path will be confused as to whether whatever dependencies they installed with easy_install or setup.py install --prefix are still usable with pip/virtualenv or if everything needs to be reinstalled from scratch.
This problem is exacerbated if one or more of the packages in question depends on installing a different version of Python than the one that is the default. The difficulty of ensuring that your Python package manger is using the Python version you want it to, and that the required dependencies are installed in the relevant Python 2.x directory and not Python 2.y, will be so endlessly frustrating to users that they will certainly give up at that stage.
Is there a simpler way to install Python software that doesn't require users to delve into all of these technical details of Python packages, paths and locations? For example, I am not a big Java user, but I do use some Java tools occasionally, and don't recall ever having to worry about X and Y dependencies of the Java software I was installing, and I have no clue how Java package managing works (and I'm happy that I don't -- I just wanted to use a tool that happened to be written in Java.) My recollection is that if you download a Jar, you just get it and it tends to work.
Is there an equivalent for Python? A way to distribute software in a way that doesn't depend on users having to chase down all these dependencies and versions? A way to perhaps compile all the relevant packages into something self-contained that can just be downloaded and used as a binary?
I would like to emphasize that this frustration happens even with the narrow goal of distributing a package to savvy Unix users, which makes the problem simpler by not worrying about cross platform issues, etc. I assume that the users are Unix savvy, and might even know Python, but just aren't aware (and don't want to be made aware) about the ins and outs of Python packaging and the myriad of internal complications/rivalries of different package managers. A disturbing feature of this issue is that it happens even when all of your Python package dependencies are well-known, well-written and well-maintained Pypi-available packages like Pandas, Scipy and Numpy. It's not like I was relying on some obscure dependencies that are not properly formed packages: rather, I was using the most mainstream packages that many might rely on.
Any help or advice on this will be greatly appreciated. I think Python is a great language with great libraries, but I find it virtually impossible to distribute the software I write in it (once it has dependencies) in a way that is easy for people to install locally and just run. I would like to clarify that the software I'm writing is not a Python library for programmatic use, but software that has executable scripts that users run as individual programs. Thanks.

We also develop software projects that depend on numpy, scipy and other PyPI packages. Hands down, the best tool currently available out there for managing remote installations is zc.buildout. It is very easy to use. You download a bootstrapping script from their website and distribute that with your package. You write a "local deployment" file, called normally buildout.cfg, that explains how to install the package locally. You ship both the bootstrap.py file and buildout.cfg with your package - we use the MANIFEST.in file in our python packages to force the embedding of these two files with the zip or tar balls distributed by PyPI. When the user unpackages it, it should execute two commands:
$ python bootstrap.py # this will download zc.buildout and setuptools
$ ./bin/buildout # this will build and **locally** install your package + deps
The package is compiled and all dependencies are installed locally, which means that the user installing your package doesn't even need root privileges, which is an added feature. The scripts are (normally) placed under ./bin, so the user can just execute them after that. zc.buildout uses setuptools for interaction with PyPI so everything you expect works out of the box.
You can extend zc.buildout quite easily if all that power is not enough - you create the so-called "recipes" that can help the user to create extra configuration files, download other stuff from the net or instantiate custom programs. zc.buildout website contains a video tutorial that explains in details how to use buildout and how to extend it. Our project Bob makes extensive use of buildout for distributing packages for scientific usage. If you would like, please visit the following page that contains detailed instructions for our developers on how they can setup their python packages so other people can build and install them locally using zc.buildout.

We're currently working to make it easier for users to get started installing Python software in a platform independent manner (in particular see https://python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/latest/future.html and http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/)
For right now, the problem with two competing versions of easy_install has been resolved, with the competing fork "distribute" being merged backing into the setuptools main line of development.
The best currently available advice on cross-platform distribution and installation of Python software is captured here: https://packaging.python.org/

Distributing python code with virtualenv?

I want to distribute some python code, with a few external dependencies, to machines with only core python installed (and users that unfamiliar with easy_install etc.).
I was wondering if perhaps virtualenv can be used for this purpose? I should be able to write some bash scripts that trigger the virtualenv (with the suitable packages) and then run my code.. but this seems somewhat messy, and I'm wondering if I'm re-inventing the wheel?
Are there any simple solutions to distributing python code with dependencies, that ideally doesn't require sudo on client machines?

Buildout - http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.buildout
As sample look at my clean project: http://hg.jackleo.info/hyde-0.5.3-buildout-enviroment/src its only 2 files that do the magic, more over Makefile is optional but then you'll need bootstrap.py (Make file downloads it, but it runs only on Linux). buildout.cfg is the main file where you write dependency's and configuration how project is laid down.
To get bootstrap.py just download from http://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zc.buildout/trunk/bootstrap/bootstrap.py
Then run python bootstap.py and bin/buildout. I do not recommend to install buildout locally although it is possible, just use the one bootstrap downloads.
I must admit that buildout is not the easiest solution but its really powerful. So learning is worth time.
UPDATE 2014-05-30
Since It was recently up-voted and used as an answer (probably), I wan to notify of few changes.
First of - buildout is now downloaded from github https://raw.githubusercontent.com/buildout/buildout/master/bootstrap/bootstrap.py
That hyde project would probably fail due to buildout 2 breaking changes.
Here you can find better samples http://www.buildout.org/en/latest/docs/index.html also I want to suggest to look at "collection of links related to Buildout" part, it might contain info for your project.
Secondly I am personally more in favor of setup.py script that can be installed using python. More about the egg structure can be found here http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/PythonEggs and if that looks too scary - look up google (query for python egg). It's actually more simple in my opinion than buildout (definitely easier to debug) as well as it is probably more useful since it can be distributed more easily and installed anywhere with a help of virtualenv or globally where with buildout you have to provide all of the building scripts with the source all of the time.

You can use a tool like PyInstaller for this purpose. Your application will appear as a single executable on all platforms, and include dependencies. The user doesn't even need Python installed!
See as an example my logview package, which has dependencies on PyQt4 and ZeroMQ and includes distributions for Linux, Mac OSX and Windows all created using PyInstaller.

You don't want to distribute your virtualenv, if that's what you're asking. But you can use pip to create a requirements file - typically called requirements.txt - and tell your users to create a virtualenv then run pip install -r requirements.txt, which will install all the dependencies for them.
See the pip docs for a description of the requirements file format, and the Pinax project for an example of a project that does this very well.

How do I do Debian packaging of a Python package?

I need to write, or find, a script to create a Debian package, using package python-support, from a Python package. The Python package will be pure Python without C extensions.
The Python package for testing purposes will just be a directory with an empty __init__.py file and a single Python module, package_test.py.
The packaging script must use python-support to provide the correct bytecode for possible multiple installations of Python on a target platform, i.e. v2.5 and v2.6 on Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty Jackalope).
Most advice I find while googling are just examples of nasty hacks that don't even use python-support or python-central.
I have spent hours researching this, and the best I can come up with is to hack around the script from an existing open source project, but I don't know which bits are required for what I'm doing.
Has anyone here made a Debian package out of a Python package in a reasonably non-hacky way?
I'm starting to think that it will take me more than a week to go from no knowledge of Debian packaging and python-support to getting a working script. How long has it taken others?

The right way of building a .deb package is using dpkg-buildpackage, but sometimes it is a little bit complicated. Instead you can use dpkg -b <folder>, and it will create your Debian package.
These are the basics for creating a Debian package with dpkg -b <folder> with any binary or with any kind of script that runs automatically without needing manual compilation (Python, Bash, Perl, and Ruby):
Create the files and folders in order to recreate the following structure:
ProgramName-Version/
ProgramName-Version/DEBIAN
ProgramName-Version/DEBIAN/control
ProgramName-Version/usr/
ProgramName-Version/usr/bin/
ProgramName-Version/usr/bin/your_script
The scripts placed at /usr/bin/ are directly called from the terminal. Note that I didn't add an extension to the script. Also you can notice that the structure of the .deb package will be the structure of the program once it's installed. So if you follow this logic, if your program has a single file, you can directly place it under ProgramName-Version/usr/bin/your_script, but if you have multiple files, you should place them under ProgramName-Version/usr/share/ProgramName/all your files and place only one file under /usr/bin/ that will call your scripts from /usr/share/ProgramName/.
Change all the folder permission to root:
chown root:root -R /path/to/ProgramName-Version
Change the script's permissions:
chmod 0755 /path/to/the/script
Finally, you can run: dpkg -b /path/to/the/ProgramName-Version and your .deb package will be created! (You can also add the post/pre install scripts and everything you want. It works like a normal Debian package.)
Here is an example of the control file. You only need to copy-paste it in to an empty file called "control" and put it in the DEBIAN folder.
Package: ProgramName
Version: VERSION
Architecture: all
Maintainer: YOUR NAME <EMAIL>
Depends: python2.7, etc , etc,
Installed-Size: in_kb
Homepage: http://example.com
Description: Here you can put a one line description. This is the short Description.
Here you put the long description, indented by one space.
The full article about Debian packages can be read here.

I would take the sources of an existing Debian package, and replace the actual package in it with your package. To find a list of packages that depend on python-support, do
apt-cache rdepends python-support
Pick a package that is Architecture: all, so that it is a pure-Python package. Going through this list, I found that e.g. python-flup might be a good starting point.
To get the source of one such package, do
apt-get source <package>
To build it, do
cd <packagesrc>
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
When editing it, expect that you only need the files in the debian folder; replace all references to flup with your own package name.
Once you get started, it should take you a day to complete.

I think you want http://pypi.python.org/pypi/stdeb:
stdeb produces Debian source packages
from Python packages via a new
distutils command, sdist_dsc.
Automatic defaults are provided for
the Debian package, but many aspects
of the resulting package can be
customized (see the customizing
section, below). An additional
command, bdist_deb, creates a Debian
binary package, a .deb file.

Most of the answers posted here are outdated, but fortunately a great Debian wiki post has been made recently, which explains the current best practices and describes how to build Debian packages for Python modules and applications.
http://wiki.debian.org/Python/Packaging

First off, there are plenty of Python packages already in Debian; you can download the source (including all the packaging) for any of them either using apt-get source or by visiting http://packages.debian.org.
You may find the following resources of use:
Debian New Maintainer's Guide
Debian Policy Manual
Debian Python Policy
Debian Python Modules Team