e.g. [for the PyOpenGL project] python 1.5.2 install directory is
When I run setup bdist (with info zip), I get an archive where the paths are
bin\lang\python\OpenGL\* As the bin/lang/python directories were copied
into the bdist.win32/dumb directory during collection of the files.
Of course, on anyone else's machine, that's just a royal pain, so I'd prefer
not to have it occur (I'm just creating the archive manually again today).
Oh, another thing, you might want the default names for binary archives to
include the Python version? Py2, Py152, or something so that people don't
get the wrong distributions for their Python versions.
Could distutils be an alternative for autoconf + make combination? I'm
rather new to distutils, but I looked distutils from this point of
view yesterday and I think that with some changes distutils could be
used as an building and installing system for applications
also. Specially for python apps with extension modules that need to be
compiled, this could be very useful.
At least installing is a problem with the current distutils as it
wants to install to PYTHONHOME.
(Yes, this is a feature request, think about it.)
Ilpo Nyyssönen # biny
/* :-) */
This is from a wxPython user. Any advice?
> Using SunOS 5.7, Python 1.5.2, Distutils 1.0.1, wxGTK 2.2.2
> I'm using WorkShop Compilers 5.0 98/12/15 C 5.0 which I have used to
> build everything else.
> Everything is fine other than the build insists in compiling with cc.
> Since .cpp files are being compiled, cc objects. It should be
> compiling with the C++ compiler (/opt/SUNWspro/bin/CC in this case)
> instead. It works fine if I cut and paste the compile commands and
> substitute the CC.
> Anyone know how do I tell distutils to use the C++ compiler?
> I don't really know anything about distutils...
http://wxPython.org Java give you jitters?
http://wxPROs.com Relax with wxPython!
From: Bastian Kleineidam [mailto:email@example.com]
> >> it seems like this type of stuff hasn't been nailed down yet?
> It has been nailed down. Distutils has installation
> "schemes". Modules are installed per default in the sys.prefix
> and sys.exec_prefix directories. Also we have default prefix
> directories for data files and scripts.
> Look at
> for a complete overview.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. I'd downloaded the list archive, but 1600
messages is a lot to get through...
In which case, I think what I'd say is that the Windows setup (default
installation directory is the Python application directory) isn't what I'd
like. But it looks like I may have to persuade Guido over that... (Actually,
there's a thread going on comp.lang.python on this topic, so I'll go and see
what's happening in that).
Meant to include the list in the reply...
From: Moore, Paul
Sent: 31 October 2000 09:17
To: 'Pete Shinners'
Subject: RE: [Distutils] adding docs/samples to bdist ??
From: Pete Shinners [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> i'd like to start using distutils to create my source and
> binary distributions. everything is working for the most part
> (i have a feeling i'll be looking into the code for further
> refinements :]). anyways, when i create my binary distribution
> it is not packaging any of the examples or help files. i
> guess the problem is; where should these files go???
> it seems like this type of stuff hasn't been nailed down yet?
As a relative newcomer, my feeling is that you're probably right. It feels
to me (having come from Perl) that Python doesn't have a particularly
formalised installation directory structure. You can just drop the .py and
.pyd files anywhere in sys.path, and it works.
While this is great for rapid development and prototyping, I believe that a
more formal definition of where installed code should be stored would be
useful. I've already raised the question on comp.lang.python of having a
proper "site packages" directory on Windows. Having standard directory
structures for things like sample code and help files may also be useful.
First question - is this sort of issue within the remit of this SIG?
If so, is there any interest in defining a standard directory structure?
And finally, assuming we do want to do this, can anyone give a reasonably
complete explanation of what currently goes into sys.path, where it comes
from, and what the reasons for the current practice are? (Assuming the
answers to the first two questions are "yes", I'm willing to do the research
on this one, but I can't provide the rationale...)
This seems odd to me...
When I build a source distribution with python setup.py sdist, my
MANIFEST.in file is not included in the resulting archive. This seems wrong,
as without the MANIFEST.in, I cannot rebuild the distribution.
I would assume that building a sdist should create save everything needed to
rebuild the package, its sdist, etc etc, from scratch.
Another thought - a "reallyclean" command would be nice (deletes all
intermediate and generated files - essentially all of the "build" and "dist"
directories, at least...