[Distutils] Deviation between distutils and setuptools over package_data

[Benjamin Root]

On Sep 18, 2013 11:37 PM, "PJ Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.v.root at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > In creating a source distribution, I have found a disparity between the
> > behaviors of distutils and setuptools with respect to package_data. As
of
> > python Issue 2279: http://bugs.python.org/issue2279, entries listed in
> > package_data are used when building an sdist. I have verified that this
> > works in a simple example when setup() is imported from distutils.core.
> > However, if I import setup() from setuptools, it does not pull in the
data
> > as listed in package_data (and presumedly data_files).
>
> You need to use the include_package_data = True flag.
>

I did and it didn't make a difference. Plus, shouldn't it have picked up
everything that I had version controlled, anyway? Does setuptools recognize
the new svn 1.7 format? Even svn 1.6 clients will refuse to do an 'svn
status' on a 1.7 repo checkout. So, I think there might be multiple bugs in
play.

I also don't see why I should have to use that keyword argument if
distutils does fine without it. sdist isnt -- from my perspective -- a
setuptools specific feature, so I had no expectation of there being such an
egregious difference.

>
> > P.S. - on a related note, for a package "foo", foo.egg-info directory is
> > created with a SOURCES.txt file. I have found that under certain
situations,
> > it seems that a successful install would result in a fully listed
> > SOURCES.txt, and then subsequent calls to sdist seems to use that
> > information to build seemingly correct archives. A co-working
> > double-checking a deployment process I made did an sdist and created a
> > source distribution without the package_data when he did a fresh
checkout,
> > but whenever I did it from my development branch, the source
distribution
> > worked fine. I haven't figured out exactly how this came about, but it
seems
> > to be tied to the SOURCES.txt file.
>
> SOURCES.txt mostly exists so that you can safely build an sdist from
> an sdist, as is required by e.g. bdist_rpm, without having any
> revision control data on hand to guide the process.  Setuptools also
> can insert a possibly-modified setup.cfg into an sdist for the same
> reason, so that if you used revision control tags to specify the
> version when building the sdist, any sdists rebuilt from that sdist
> will have the same version tags.

Yes, I understand what sources.txt is for. The issue is that it seems that
it is possible for different build commands to produce different source.txt
results. Since I haven't figured out how I managed to do that, it isn't the
focus of my bug report.

Cheers!
Ben Root
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130919/ae3c3688/attachment.html>