Éric Araujo <merwok <at> netwok.org> writes: > [Vinay] > > A simple change to packaging will allow an archive containing a > > setup.cfg-based > > directory to be installed in the same way as a > > source directory. > Isn’t that already supported, as long as the tarball or zipfile contains > source files? In any case, it was intended to be, and there’s still > support code around.
No, by which I mean - if you have a simple zip of a project directory# containing a setup.cfg, and run pysetup3 install <zipname>, it fails to work in the same way as pysetup3 install <dir> where the <zipname> is a recursive zip of <dir>. However, a two-line change enables this: http://goo.gl/pd51J > Correct. I’m still pondering whether I find the idea of registering > built files in setup.cfg as elegant or hacky :) We also have the other > ideas I wrote to choose from. On Linux, if we're building from source, of course we use the build_ext step to capture the built artifacts. However, how else could you do it on Windows, when you're not actually building? The built files could be named in the [extension:] section rather than the [files] section - the former means that you have to add code to deal with it, the latter is less elegant but would require less work to make it happen. > > 3. Ideally, the GUI should co-operate with venvs, by offering some > > form of browse facility. The command line does this automatically. > Will Windows users want a GUI to create venvs too? I don't think this is needed for venv creation, but having a "Find Other..." to locate an alternative Python in a virtual env doesn't seem too onerous for the user. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
