[Distutils] MANIFEST destiny :)
ianb at colorstudy.com
Wed Nov 16 17:29:33 CET 2005
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>* Always, always, always build MANIFEST, and always include both the
>>MANIFEST file and MANIFEST.in (if present) in the source distribution.
> -1 on always building MANIFEST.
> This would miss the point of managing MANIFEST files
> independently of your package files, e.g. using
> Makefiles or other tools dealing with file dependencies,
> checkouts, etc.
How about always build it, automatically, if some particular option is
not passed to setup()? This would only apply to packages using
setuptools, not distutils, and there's other things that existing
distutils packages might have to tweak to move to setuptools. Maybe it
would be as simple as a keyword argument that refers to a routine to
build the MANIFEST file; and if you build MANIFEST by hand, then you
just make the function a no-op.
Also, disable all command-line options that control when/if/how MANIFEST
is generated; these seem peculiar to me. MANIFEST generation seems like
package metadata, not something particular to your build, and
command-line options seem like a bad way to control that. It's a little
fuzzy, though, since command-line options and setup.cfg are equivalent,
and setup.cfg options often feel like package data. So... I don't know
what the middle ground is there. Either way, these aren't things that
seem like they should be regularly tweaked. I don't know, I don't have
any packages with complex (or even simple) build processes, so I only
know that the current system is mysterious to me, and almost but doesn't
always work without my intervention.
I think Phillip also mentioned using MANIFEST for package_data? At
least insofar as the packages and the MANIFEST intersect, this seems
like a good idea.
Ian Bicking / ianb at colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Distutils-SIG