At 04:31 PM 6/7/2006 -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
Based on the projects I see in my Python src directory, it is indeed common. Sometime the code dir is called "lib", sometimes "src", and occasionally something else. I guess we just seem to use a disjoint set of Python packages.
But that's not the same thing at all. The common layout in such a case is to have package_dir = {'':'src'} # or 'lib' and that is quite a different layout from what you're doing. I would be very curious to see what packages are doing as you are; at the moment I know of one that actually uses a {'foo':''} convention (which has similar problems), and I think I've seen one other besides yours that uses {'foo':'lib'}. But to my knowledge, the majority of 'src' and 'lib' dirs out there are following the {'':'src'} or {'':'lib'} convention in setup.py, not the {'foo':'lib'} one.
user confusion in understanding the layout,
Again I don't see your point. Why do you think a user would be confused? This is the first I've heard such a claim in a long time managing project layouts.
Because there is no directory with the package's name, so simple browsing of the directory layout will not tell you what packages are in it. The src/ or lib/ prefix isn't the obstacle, it's the absence of disambiguating information.
Actually, setuptools only mentions creating a *parent* package, e.g. package_dir={'':'lib'}, where the 'amara' package directory would then be a subdirectory of lib.
That's true. But to me the fact that it's a prominent pattern in base distutils docs
I'd dispute that, as the distutils docs themselves *literally* describe the layout with packages in the setup.py directory as being the "most obvious". See: http://python.org/doc/2.4.1/dist/listing-packages.html The {'':'lib'} pattern is listed as "a different convention", and the {'foo':'lib'} option is listed last, as "another possible convention" -- hardly a stellar recommendation. :) Setuptools supports it, of course, because there *are* packages in the wild that use it. Nonetheless, I won't pass up an opportunity to encourage people to use the "most obvious" approach instead. :) I'm personally migrating away from the habit of using the {'':'src'} convention myself.
I'm just happy that it looks as if I'll be able to provide setuptools-enabled versions of 4Suite and Amara soonish.
I'm glad it's working for you. Please don't let any of this discourage you from reporting bugs; I'm just as happy when a reported bug can be considered fixed without actually making any code changes. ;-)