[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: I kept this report open to address “test command needs dist-info”, but there’s already a report about that (#12302) and I think it’s clearer to keep this one closed as a discussion archive linked from the develop bug. -- resolution: later -> rejected sta

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: I temporarily retract my request for addition of build_distinfo. Other build_spam/install_spam commands have clear responsibilities: build creates files, install moves them. This is the classic make/make install division of work, where you may want to run build

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Carl Meyer added the comment: >> I don't really think the "invalid PEP 376" issue is a problem: PEP >> 376 describes the metadata for installed distributions; it has >> nothing to say about built metadata for a distribution which has not >> yet been installed. > The problem is that develop is a

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: About writing dist-info files into the build dir or the project root dir, see msg140195 -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: > So if we include the RECORD file (point number 2) without the checksum > and size (two columns in the RECORD csv format), Well, three columns, the last one being empty. > we will still be PEP376 valid (maybe?), but the file verification > information will be mis

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Carl Meyer added the comment: You guys are more familiar with the codebase than I am, but it seems to me that the RECORD file should clearly either be not present or empty when metadata has been built but not yet installed. I don't really think the "invalid PEP 376" issue is a problem: PEP 37

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Michael Mulich added the comment: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Éric Araujo wrote: > What do you mean with context?  Wouldn’t all three commands just make install_distinfo generate files in the build dir? Right, my context comment is invalid. > I think that option 4 is the most inelegan

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Changes by Michael Mulich : -- nosy: -michael.mulich2 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://m

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: (It was probably the Roundup quotes bug.) > The action needs to be called with an install, develop or test > context, so I think item four is our best option. What do you mean with context? Wouldn’t all three commands just make install_distinfo generate files i

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

michael mulich added the comment: Gmail decided to strip the quotes... Grr... > So, what do we do? > 1) don’t generate RECORD at all → invalid PEP 376 We have to generate a RECORD, otherwise resource lookups in development and testing modes will fail or at least should fail. > 2) generat

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

michael mulich added the comment: We have to generate a RECORD, otherwise resource lookups in development and testing modes will fail or at least should fail. Yes, but that's not all. > 4) don’t add a build_distinfo command, just run install_distinfo to the build > dir from the test and devel

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: > I forgot one thing: setuptools’ egg_info command does write a list of > paths, so we can look at how it solved the problem with the RECORD and > RESOURCES files. I was wrong: I just checked the output of egg_info, and it does not generate files with paths. So,

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Changes by higery : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file22334/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscrib

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

higery added the comment: > Higery: Michael is willing to work with you on this bug. > OK. :) -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22334/unnamed ___ Python tracker ___ Hi

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: I forgot one thing: setuptools’ egg_info command does write a list of paths, so we can look at how it solved the problem with the RECORD and RESOURCES files. Higery: Michael is willing to work with you on this bug. -- ___

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Changes by Michael Mulich : -- nosy: +michael.mulich ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mai

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

Éric Araujo added the comment: packaging.command.cmd already has this method: it was renamed to get_reinitialized_function, to better match other method names. > the workaround of my code is just setting the 'distinfo-dir' option > with os.curdir value Yes, that’s a workaround :) Have you tes

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

higery added the comment: Now, the workaround of my code is just setting the 'distinfo-dir' option with os.curdir value through calling a 'reinitialize_command(self, command, reinit_subcommands=False, **kw)' function , which is added in packaging's Command class for my own purpose, but I thin

[issue12279] Add build_distinfo command to packaging

New submission from Éric Araujo : In the current packaging module, the PEP 376 .dist-info directory is generated at install time. It should be split into two phases, build_distinfo and install_distinfo, to support at least two use cases: - the develop command, which needs access to .dist-info