Re: [Distutils] package_data not used by sdist command
At 12:48 PM 2/3/2007 +0100, Arve Knudsen wrote:
Funny, I seem to recall having raised the same issue, but not receiving much in way of an answer. Glad to see it's being taken care of at least.
Um, it's not being "taken care of". As I said, "a patch would go a long way towards getting it in." That means it's probably *not* being taken care of any time soon, unless somebody submits one.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:03:27 +0100, Phillip J. Eby
At 12:48 PM 2/3/2007 +0100, Arve Knudsen wrote:
Funny, I seem to recall having raised the same issue, but not receiving much in way of an answer. Glad to see it's being taken care of at least.
Um, it's not being "taken care of". As I said, "a patch would go a long way towards getting it in." That means it's probably *not* being taken care of any time soon, unless somebody submits one.
I interpreted you as having recognized the problem, but that it would not make it into 0.6. As long as it can be scheduled for a future version I can try my hand at contributing a patch (unless someone else wants to). Arve
Philip, I've now modified the latest setuptools (0.6c5) so that the egg_info
command respects package_data and exclude_package_data when creating its
sources manifest (and thus influencing sdist's choice of files). Does this
sound like the right approach to you (I figured sdist should base its choice
of files on egg_info)?
I've encountered one problem so far, which is that if data files are both
listed in *.egg-info/SOURCES.txt and exclude_package_data they are not
excluded. This may happen if files are added to the exclude list after a
.egg-info is already generated. I'm not familiar enough with setuptools'
design to know how to best solve this.
Please let me know what you think.
Best,
Arve
On 2/3/07, Arve Knudsen
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:03:27 +0100, Phillip J. Eby
wrote: At 12:48 PM 2/3/2007 +0100, Arve Knudsen wrote:
Funny, I seem to recall having raised the same issue, but not receiving much in way of an answer. Glad to see it's being taken care of at least.
Um, it's not being "taken care of". As I said, "a patch would go a long way towards getting it in." That means it's probably *not* being taken care of any time soon, unless somebody submits one.
I interpreted you as having recognized the problem, but that it would not make it into 0.6. As long as it can be scheduled for a future version I can try my hand at contributing a patch (unless someone else wants to).
Arve _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
participants (3)
-
Arve Knudsen
-
Arve Knudsen
-
Phillip J. Eby