search

ericmandel / pyds9

Python connection to SAOimage DS9 via XPA
76 stars 41 forks source link

Modify the directory structure #24

Closed montefra closed 8 years ago

montefra commented 8 years ago

This series of commits address issue #19. I'm using the astropy template as base.

This way we should get a standard setup for installation (#18), documentation and testing for free.

For now I'm just moving and editing files (starting from directory). Once I've imported all the important things, I'll check that it works.

montefra commented 8 years ago

@ericmandel : for now I have not updated the licence in some of the files (like docs/conf.py). Your code is released under LGPL, while the astropy template uses 3-clause BSD style license.

Also: pyds9 will look like affilated astropy packages. I don't know if we will become one (your call)

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

@montefra I see your valuable efforts as a move toward full integration with astropy. I support this ... with the caveat that I have no idea what it actually means! But the aim is to provide the Python community with the best tools possible, and I rely on you to define what that means in terms of packaging.

So ... I suspect we want to make the pyds9 license the same as astropy and move toward becoming an affiliated package, right?

montefra commented 8 years ago

I'm using the astropy template for a few reasons:

1) since astropy is an important piece of astronomical software and it has a growing community, using their template makes easier for people in the community to interact with pyds9, as @cdeil pointed out somewhere else 2) the template offers already a lot of setups, so it's less work for me :sweat_smile:. Plus I trust their example and experience in packaging.

About being an affiliated package: I don't know exactly. But I guess part of it is about being in a network of (hopefully reliable) packages. For the licencing: if I remember correctly LGPL and BSD are compatible. I don't think that there are problems in keeping different licences for different pieces of software.

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

@montefra @cdeil two good reasons and I am sure you will give good advice about becoming an affiliated package in due course. We don't have to do everything at once.

re license: XPA is under LGPL because that was the only license available in the 1990's ... I've moved to the MIT license for js9 and pyjs9, as that seems to be the standard for Web applications. I do notice that some projects release under two licenses, which might be appropriate in this case.

cdeil commented 8 years ago

@ericmandel – If re-licensing XPA and / or pyds9 is possible, +1 to use MIT.

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

@cdeil The XPA repository is now under the MIT license, tagged as v2.1.6. We can redo XPA within pyds9 at our leisure.

montefra commented 8 years ago

I should have ported all the astropy_helper stuff in pyds9.

There are still things to do:

[ ] figure out what to do with the licences [ ] figure out how to tell the setup to compile the stuff in cextern (I'll get inspired from astropy) [ ] debug the code (probably it's just matter of making sure that the imports are correct) [ ] make sure that the little documentation we have can be built [ ] move the test function into the test directory

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

In the xpa repository, I changed the license to MIT and we can do that same here. But perhaps pyds9 should follow the astropy lead, if different (although presumably xpa in pyds9 should have the same licence as the repository xpa)?

montefra commented 8 years ago

I think that having xpa with the same licence it's easier, unless MIT has problems with the 3-clause BSD (which I doubt)

cdeil commented 8 years ago

MIT and BSD-3 are perfectly compatible, having everything under MIT is just fine, there's no reason / advantage to switching to BSD-3 that I know of.

And @ericmandel – bit thanks for re-licensing under MIT so that we don't have to worry about license compatibility issues with Astropy et al.

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

@cdeil @montefra OK, even though we have 2 different threads on this, the answer seems to be the same: we can use MIT for pyds9, XPA already having been changed in the repository (and we should update the XPA inside pyds9 to reflect this).

montefra commented 8 years ago

@ericmandel : yes :blush:

I'll try to review the changes up to now and merge in devel branch in the next days. After I've done it, I'll come back to you about the MIT licensed xpa.

montefra commented 8 years ago

I'll update xpa to the latest version and merge into "devel".

Then I'll try to figure out how to build it as in #18, #26

montefra commented 8 years ago

If there are no objections I'll merge this branch into devel in the next days.

Then try to figure out how to make xpa using the astropy machinery.

ericmandel commented 8 years ago

Yes, it's fine to merge ...