[Distutils] PEP 376 Status
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Mon Mar 29 23:54:23 CEST 2010
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Floris Bruynooghe
<floris.bruynooghe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> I've sent a mail after Pycon to request some comments on the work we
>> have done during Pycon but I had no feedback at all :)
>> I realize that this piece of work is quite dense, and hard to follow.
>> (As a reminder the draft is here:
> This work calls for a systemwide sysconfig.cfg file which maps the
> categories onto system locations. I notice the example one contains
> sections for "posix" and "posix_home" (among others), presumably the
> "posix_home" one is for when using "setup.py --home".
>But what about
> the user site-packages directory (setup.py --user)? Would it make
> sense to have a sysconfig.cfg (or equivalent) file in the user
> site-packages too?
What about having a user section in sysconfig.cfg ?
> On a tangent it seems to like --home should be deprecated in favour of
> --user. Any toughts on this?
Why deprecating --home ? It's a target for unix-only systems, but not
specific to a user
> As for the 1st point of the open issues - what about pkgutil.open()
> without having to use a "setup.py develop"; here a half baked idea: If
> the sys.path entry from which the current module came from does not
> contain the setup.cfg metadata required can pkgutil.open() not assume
> that it's a non-installed package/module and simply use the relative
> path to find the resource? Altough I can still see this getting messy
> with non-inplace builds of extension modules.
I think it's a bit what we've try to do: pkgutil.open() works with paths
in the development tree, relative to setup.py/cfg.
If its' not what you mean, can you provide examples ?
> Lastly has toydist's "toysetup.info" from David Cournapeau been
> considered in the discussions on setup.cfg for distutils2? It's a
> pretty nice format and it actually has an implementation too.
No. I havn't looked at it yet, I think its pretty new (like, a few
> I do
> think there is value in that format to superseed the
> setup.py/setup.cfg combination (there is the problem of setup.cfg now
> becoming both a config file for the developer as well as a formal
> description for the package distribution). Currently it seems a lot
> more verbose for tagging files under categories compared to the
> proposed setup.cfg, but that might not be set in stone and I hope
> David will be happy to incorporate reasonable proposals if this is
> preceived to be a problem.
If David could participate to this discussion and present his ideas on
this, that would be great.
We could compare both syntaxes and try to build the best one.
> PS: Thanks for the work of writing up the PyCon packaging sprint!
For the wiki.rst, that's mainly other people from the sprint group
that did this summary ;)
So +1 in the thanks
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
More information about the Distutils-SIG