[Pythonmac-SIG] Should buildpkg mangle resource file names or not?

[Jack Jansen]

Here's a question that came up in a private discussion between 
Dinu and me, and I'd like to get other people to think about it 
too.

Dinu's original implementation of buildpkg.py copied a 
pre-defined set of files from the resource directory to the 
package. These files had to exist with the package name in 
there, i.e. "Python 2.3a1.pre_install".

I modified this so that a file that was simply called 
"pre_install" would be copied into the package as "Python 
2.3a1.pre_install". This has the advantage that you can use your 
resource-source-directory for multiple distributions, because 
the filenames in there are not dependent on the installer 
package name. For one thing, this would allow me to put the 
resource-source-directory for the Python installer under CVS 
more easily.

Dinu then sent me a patch that copies *all* files from the 
resource-source-directory. This is arguably better (as you can 
include sub-scripts, and as it allows the inclusion of resources 
that buildpkg isn't aware of), but it would break the generic 
name scheme I had done.

Which scheme is better? Or should we do both? How?
--
- Jack Jansen        <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com>        
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- 
Emma Goldman -