[Distutils] Annoucing distribute project
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Thu Sep 25 18:29:42 CEST 2008
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Cournapeau <
david at ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > - setuptools has the narrow minded view of a python package being
> > contained in a single directory, which doesn't fit well when you
> > do have common locations for include or doc files. Does the fork
> > accept patches to change such limitations and allowing FHS
> > compliant packages?
> Being self-contained is also a feature. People who package softwares
> outside distributions like this, as you are surely aware. Personally, I
> don't like that setuptools broke distutils install either (I prefer to
> manage my packages with stow, because setuptools broke too many times my
> setup for unknown reasons).
> There should be the possibility to do both kind of installs
> (self-contained, or FHS compliant), but this is not so much a setuptools
> issue as a distutils issue, isn't it ? Dealing with this in distutils
> will be no fun, though...
Well, as long as things are clearly defined in the package, I guess FHS
package could be built with the same source tree.
We could even install a distribution the FHS way or the self-contained way,
as long as the tool knows what to put where.
But that is already the case, a bit:
For instance we have bdist_rpm, that builds rpms by mapping distutils
to rpm ones,
The question is: starting with the current MetaData what would you miss to
do a FHS installation ? Take a look at
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org
Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG