On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
On Jun 19, 2009, at 13:54 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It isn't so easy for setuptools to know which things ought to have +x and which things ought not just based on their pathnames or other metadata.
Unless you specify explicitly it in a metadata file.
My argument is that using a metadata-preserving archive format allows a programmer to control that stuff and also allows setuptools (or distutils, I guess) to ignore that stuff. Inventing a way to pass that information through the metadata requires the programmer to learn and use an extra configuration on top of what they already do, and requires setuptools (distutils) to pay attention to that stuff.
Having an archive format that preserves such bits would probably be a good way to solve all such problems -- by making it the packagers problems to set the bits before packaging rather than setuptools's problem to figure out which bits ought to be set after installation.
How would you create such an archive on Windows? (A serious question, not trying to be argumentative.)
You mean a bdist? You can't "cross-compile" and build a bdist for Linux on Windows (can you?), or vice versa. I think we're only talking about "non-cross-compiled" bdists here.
A metadata-preserving archive format wouldn't make this harder, and it might make it easier.
I think he mean how to do a sdist on windows that has +x on executable python scripts? I don't know the answer but it might be a good case for metadata external to the filesystem.
-- Leonardo Santagada santagada at gmail.com