That seems like a lot of work. Is it really worth it?
Probably not. I'll leave that decision up to you, and plan to bug you if the format changes such that having this would have prevented code from breaking.
rfc822.formatdate is broken in my (Debian's) python2.1 and python2.2 in that it uses strftime (and thus day and month
Ok, was just wondering. Less code means less to maintain, but if it doesn't work then use the other implementation.
Using debchange to generate the changelog entry would eliminate the need for parseaddr and formatdate altogether, so perhaps that is the best way to go. Comments?
That seems like a win. Adding a fake changelog entry is just a few lines of code, right? Stripping it out shouldn't be too bad I would guess, just a few more lines with a regex? Checking for errors in the run a few more? Wouldn't that make it more accurate, allow it to possibly follow changes to the Debian code without modification of the Python code, and get rid of a bunch of other code?
It looks like you don't use sdist to build your source distribution, since it includes files which aren't in the MANIFEST.
That's true. I have my own process for building the source tar which involves CVS, tags, a clean checkout of that tag from the repository, and running a script if present. Since not all my code releases are Python, I'd prefer if I could continue releasing code in that way, but would consider another option if required.
file from the doc subdirectory to MANIFEST to fix this, I think. A better solution might be to add 'graft doc' to MANIFEST.in.
Doing this has resolved that problem. Thanks. Looks like it builds fine.
As far as I can tell, README and README.txt are the only doc-type files that distutils treats specially. (They automatically get added to the MANIFEST.) Are there any PEPs or other standards which suggest other standard names for doc files?
In my case, I don't have README in doc, I have documentation for the system in there. README is in the top directory.
After sleeping on it, my current thinking is to drop 'doc' from the list, and only look for files (not directories). After seeing jotweb2, I'm think of adding 'LICENSE' and 'LICENCE' to the list. Comments?
That's probably a good idea. Having the license in the package is a
good thing.
Sean
--
I think the net needs some Viagra today. It's just not performing...
-- Mike Loseke, 2000
Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff