[Distutils] RFC : PEP 376 - egg.info
pje at telecommunity.com
Tue May 5 01:18:48 CEST 2009
At 12:50 AM 5/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> > At 06:01 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I don't see any point to the normalization.
> >> >>
> >> >> To avoid different naming conventions like:
> >> >>
> >> >> PKG-INFO, requires.txt, SOURCES.txt
> >> >
> >> > And the problem with that is...?
> >> inconsistency, but right, it makes no sense if any file/dir can be added
> >> there.
> >> What about SOURCES.txt btw ? What is the reason to add it ?
> > It's for source distributions. It allows them to be able to rebuild an
> > identical source distribution in the absence of source control metadata.
> > It's not really necessary for the installation process, although it's used
> > to figure out which files to install if you use include_package_data=True.
>Any particular reason to call it "SOURCES.txt" ?
>Or we can call it MANIFEST (with '/'-separated relative path)
I called it SOURCES.txt because MANIFEST is ambiguous as to what it's
a manifest *of*, and also to distinguish it from any user-generated
MANIFEST file. (If you don't know about those, you're probably going
to break backward compatibility w/somebody, btw. Distutils usage is
a diverse collection of nightmares.)
Anyway, the name of the file has no bearing on what distutils does,
unless distutils is trying to implement the same feature as
setuptools: i.e. round-trippable sdists whose original manifest was
generated via revision control.
More information about the Distutils-SIG