%global _empty_manifest_terminate_build 0 Name: python-p Version: 1.4.0 Release: 1 Summary: Aliases any available project commands or scripts to `p `. License: MIT URL: https://www.dropseed.dev/p Source0: https://mirrors.nju.edu.cn/pypi/web/packages/88/27/9d05057da694ff15d3d921eff3c0c46075b98881c4f86f33d86782a8d137/p-1.4.0.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch Requires: python3-click Requires: python3-click-didyoumean %description ## Why ### Context switching sucks It can often take several minutes just to figure out how to *start* working on something. Every project is different, but damn near every project comes with a set of development commands or scripts to run common actions. And if it doesn’t, then it probably should. Different languages, people, and tools accomplish this in different ways. Some projects use the good ol’ `Makefile`, while others use `package.json` “scripts”, bash scripts, `rake`, `fabric`, and so on and so on… P was built to make it easier to jump between projects, and to save some keystrokes in the meantime. ### Improving developer experience Ideally, p will “just work”. But if not, it is often in your project’s best interest to design a developer experience that *would* work if someone were using p. That is – script out some of the most commonly used actions for your project (`install`, `test`, `deploy`, etc.), and put them in a uniform place where contributors can easily figure out how to use them. Now even the people who don't use p at least have a shot at getting up and running on their own. ### The search for a universal experience For a long time I've been in search of the perfect development task manager to use on every project. But that proved to be difficult as the repos got smaller, more self-contained, and spread across languages and dependency systems. Using a Makefile is the closest thing to what I'm looking for. Most people have `make`. But there's a lot of things I just can't stand about it (it's just ugly, and I can't help but think that it feels like some kind of *hack*). I've settled on the idea of using a "scripts" folder with one-off files for each task. Usually just bash scripts, but can easily be a small Python script or something else. These work basically everywhere, and it's not hard to tell someone to do `./scripts/test`. But even the "scripts" pattern doesn't make sense *on every project*. Some frameworks/projects already come with a solution, like pre-existing `package.json` "scripts". Do we really want to create make `scripts/test` that just runs `npm run test`? Seems dumb. "I guess we'll use npm scripts on this project..." So, every project inevitably ends up being a little bit different. But for those of us that have to constantly jump around between those projects, p smooths out the rough edges in our day-to-day, and enables us to make per-project decisions about the developer experience (and reminds us to even be thinking about that in the first place). ### Bonus: git hooks Git hooks can be a super useful, but confusing process to use. The [gist](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/git-hooks#local-hooks) is that they generally aren't shared or set up for each user of a project automatically. There are some tools like [pre-commit](https://pre-commit.com/) or [husky](https://github.com/typicode/husky) that really go the extra mile in creating a system for git hooks, but a lot of our projects don't really warrant that and, again, it felt strange to now have a project dependency in that process... Do we install that thing per-project even if the project doesn't use that language otherwise? If we install it on our machines outside the project, is that now a requirement that can't be required? Is it even possible to run the hook/linter/formatter without that tool? Anyway, p embraces git's (implied) attitude about hooks: they're optional. If a user has p, then we'll take an extra step to install the git hook for them and put things in place. It's a nice-to-have. If you don't have p, then at least you can still run your linters/formatters manually if you want (i.e. `npm run pre-commit`). And if you need to *require* that those checks are run, no matter who (or what) commits to the project? Then set them up in CI. You don't need anything special to do this -- just run your script/command as a step like a non-p user would. It's not fancy, and it works for us. ## Inspired by - [Dropseed’s](https://github.com/dropseed) project-cli (private) - [Flint Hills Design’s](https://github.com/flinthillsdesign) fhd-cli (private) - [https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all](https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all) - [https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo](https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo) - having too many projects %package -n python3-p Summary: Aliases any available project commands or scripts to `p `. Provides: python-p BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3-setuptools BuildRequires: python3-pip %description -n python3-p ## Why ### Context switching sucks It can often take several minutes just to figure out how to *start* working on something. Every project is different, but damn near every project comes with a set of development commands or scripts to run common actions. And if it doesn’t, then it probably should. Different languages, people, and tools accomplish this in different ways. Some projects use the good ol’ `Makefile`, while others use `package.json` “scripts”, bash scripts, `rake`, `fabric`, and so on and so on… P was built to make it easier to jump between projects, and to save some keystrokes in the meantime. ### Improving developer experience Ideally, p will “just work”. But if not, it is often in your project’s best interest to design a developer experience that *would* work if someone were using p. That is – script out some of the most commonly used actions for your project (`install`, `test`, `deploy`, etc.), and put them in a uniform place where contributors can easily figure out how to use them. Now even the people who don't use p at least have a shot at getting up and running on their own. ### The search for a universal experience For a long time I've been in search of the perfect development task manager to use on every project. But that proved to be difficult as the repos got smaller, more self-contained, and spread across languages and dependency systems. Using a Makefile is the closest thing to what I'm looking for. Most people have `make`. But there's a lot of things I just can't stand about it (it's just ugly, and I can't help but think that it feels like some kind of *hack*). I've settled on the idea of using a "scripts" folder with one-off files for each task. Usually just bash scripts, but can easily be a small Python script or something else. These work basically everywhere, and it's not hard to tell someone to do `./scripts/test`. But even the "scripts" pattern doesn't make sense *on every project*. Some frameworks/projects already come with a solution, like pre-existing `package.json` "scripts". Do we really want to create make `scripts/test` that just runs `npm run test`? Seems dumb. "I guess we'll use npm scripts on this project..." So, every project inevitably ends up being a little bit different. But for those of us that have to constantly jump around between those projects, p smooths out the rough edges in our day-to-day, and enables us to make per-project decisions about the developer experience (and reminds us to even be thinking about that in the first place). ### Bonus: git hooks Git hooks can be a super useful, but confusing process to use. The [gist](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/git-hooks#local-hooks) is that they generally aren't shared or set up for each user of a project automatically. There are some tools like [pre-commit](https://pre-commit.com/) or [husky](https://github.com/typicode/husky) that really go the extra mile in creating a system for git hooks, but a lot of our projects don't really warrant that and, again, it felt strange to now have a project dependency in that process... Do we install that thing per-project even if the project doesn't use that language otherwise? If we install it on our machines outside the project, is that now a requirement that can't be required? Is it even possible to run the hook/linter/formatter without that tool? Anyway, p embraces git's (implied) attitude about hooks: they're optional. If a user has p, then we'll take an extra step to install the git hook for them and put things in place. It's a nice-to-have. If you don't have p, then at least you can still run your linters/formatters manually if you want (i.e. `npm run pre-commit`). And if you need to *require* that those checks are run, no matter who (or what) commits to the project? Then set them up in CI. You don't need anything special to do this -- just run your script/command as a step like a non-p user would. It's not fancy, and it works for us. ## Inspired by - [Dropseed’s](https://github.com/dropseed) project-cli (private) - [Flint Hills Design’s](https://github.com/flinthillsdesign) fhd-cli (private) - [https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all](https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all) - [https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo](https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo) - having too many projects %package help Summary: Development documents and examples for p Provides: python3-p-doc %description help ## Why ### Context switching sucks It can often take several minutes just to figure out how to *start* working on something. Every project is different, but damn near every project comes with a set of development commands or scripts to run common actions. And if it doesn’t, then it probably should. Different languages, people, and tools accomplish this in different ways. Some projects use the good ol’ `Makefile`, while others use `package.json` “scripts”, bash scripts, `rake`, `fabric`, and so on and so on… P was built to make it easier to jump between projects, and to save some keystrokes in the meantime. ### Improving developer experience Ideally, p will “just work”. But if not, it is often in your project’s best interest to design a developer experience that *would* work if someone were using p. That is – script out some of the most commonly used actions for your project (`install`, `test`, `deploy`, etc.), and put them in a uniform place where contributors can easily figure out how to use them. Now even the people who don't use p at least have a shot at getting up and running on their own. ### The search for a universal experience For a long time I've been in search of the perfect development task manager to use on every project. But that proved to be difficult as the repos got smaller, more self-contained, and spread across languages and dependency systems. Using a Makefile is the closest thing to what I'm looking for. Most people have `make`. But there's a lot of things I just can't stand about it (it's just ugly, and I can't help but think that it feels like some kind of *hack*). I've settled on the idea of using a "scripts" folder with one-off files for each task. Usually just bash scripts, but can easily be a small Python script or something else. These work basically everywhere, and it's not hard to tell someone to do `./scripts/test`. But even the "scripts" pattern doesn't make sense *on every project*. Some frameworks/projects already come with a solution, like pre-existing `package.json` "scripts". Do we really want to create make `scripts/test` that just runs `npm run test`? Seems dumb. "I guess we'll use npm scripts on this project..." So, every project inevitably ends up being a little bit different. But for those of us that have to constantly jump around between those projects, p smooths out the rough edges in our day-to-day, and enables us to make per-project decisions about the developer experience (and reminds us to even be thinking about that in the first place). ### Bonus: git hooks Git hooks can be a super useful, but confusing process to use. The [gist](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/git-hooks#local-hooks) is that they generally aren't shared or set up for each user of a project automatically. There are some tools like [pre-commit](https://pre-commit.com/) or [husky](https://github.com/typicode/husky) that really go the extra mile in creating a system for git hooks, but a lot of our projects don't really warrant that and, again, it felt strange to now have a project dependency in that process... Do we install that thing per-project even if the project doesn't use that language otherwise? If we install it on our machines outside the project, is that now a requirement that can't be required? Is it even possible to run the hook/linter/formatter without that tool? Anyway, p embraces git's (implied) attitude about hooks: they're optional. If a user has p, then we'll take an extra step to install the git hook for them and put things in place. It's a nice-to-have. If you don't have p, then at least you can still run your linters/formatters manually if you want (i.e. `npm run pre-commit`). And if you need to *require* that those checks are run, no matter who (or what) commits to the project? Then set them up in CI. You don't need anything special to do this -- just run your script/command as a step like a non-p user would. It's not fancy, and it works for us. ## Inspired by - [Dropseed’s](https://github.com/dropseed) project-cli (private) - [Flint Hills Design’s](https://github.com/flinthillsdesign) fhd-cli (private) - [https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all](https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all) - [https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo](https://github.com/bkeepers/strappydoo) - having too many projects %prep %autosetup -n p-1.4.0 %build %py3_build %install %py3_install install -d -m755 %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir} if [ -d doc ]; then cp -arf doc %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}; fi if [ -d docs ]; then cp -arf docs %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}; fi if [ -d example ]; then cp -arf example %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}; fi if [ -d examples ]; then cp -arf examples %{buildroot}/%{_pkgdocdir}; fi pushd %{buildroot} if [ -d usr/lib ]; then find usr/lib -type f -printf "/%h/%f\n" >> filelist.lst fi if [ -d usr/lib64 ]; then find usr/lib64 -type f -printf "/%h/%f\n" >> filelist.lst fi if [ -d usr/bin ]; then find usr/bin -type f -printf "/%h/%f\n" >> filelist.lst fi if [ -d usr/sbin ]; then find usr/sbin -type f -printf "/%h/%f\n" >> filelist.lst fi touch doclist.lst if [ -d usr/share/man ]; then find usr/share/man -type f -printf "/%h/%f.gz\n" >> doclist.lst fi popd mv %{buildroot}/filelist.lst . mv %{buildroot}/doclist.lst . %files -n python3-p -f filelist.lst %dir %{python3_sitelib}/* %files help -f doclist.lst %{_docdir}/* %changelog * Mon May 15 2023 Python_Bot - 1.4.0-1 - Package Spec generated