| msg82378 - (view) |
Author: George Sakkis (gsakkis) |
Date: 2009-02-17 22:32 |
| Currently each glob defined in package_data must match files only; if it matches a directory, it raises an exception later when calling copy_file(). This means that a glob like 'mydata/*' will fail if there is any subdirectory under 'mydata'. One simple useful change would be to allow a glob match a directory and interpret it as a recursive inclusion of the directory. A more general feature request (perhaps a separate ticket) would be to port to setup() the logic currently expressed in MANIFEST.in. In the long term, MF.in should IMO be deprecated because (a) it's a second file one has to remember to write and maintain in addition to setup.py (b) has its own ad-hoc syntax instead of python and (c) overlaps in scope with package_data and data_files of setup.py. The exact API exposing MF.in's functionality can be decided after (and if) there is consensus on deprecating/replacing it. |
|
|
| msg82384 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) *  |
Date: 2009-02-17 22:48 |
| I am no in favor of MANIFEST.in removal because I find it very convenient to define what is included in a package and I rarely use package_data or data_files. So I am -1 on its deprecation. That said, having a mechanism to include directory recursively sounds good. And people using this wouldn't have to maintain a MANIFEST.in. Overall, I don't see a problem of having both ways. Maybe some kind of plugin system could be created so people can implement their own way to get a file list. I am thinking here about the feature in setuptools that builds the file list using .svn, so you don't have to define anything at all. In any case, for the glob in data_files, how do you express this MANIFEST.in line ? recursive-include directory/subdir *.py *.txt |
|
|
| msg82415 - (view) |
Author: George Sakkis (gsakkis) |
Date: 2009-02-18 13:57 |
| > I am no in favor of MANIFEST.in removal because I find it very > convenient to define what is included in a package and I rarely use > package_data or data_files. AFAIK the MANIFEST is used only by sdist; what's the point of including files in the archive sdist creates if they are not going to be installed somewhere ? The only case I can think of is temporary files/modules needed only for the installation. > Maybe some kind of plugin system could be created so people can > implement their own way to get a file list. I am thinking here about > the feature in setuptools that builds the file list using .svn, > so you don't have to define anything at all. Right, but it's still good to have a shortcut for the common cases expressed in MANIFEST.in; anything more complex can use the plugin. > In any case, for the glob in data_files, how do you express this > MANIFEST.in line ? > > recursive-include directory/subdir *.py *.txt Currently I don't; that requires a modification (or extension) of the API, for example instead of a flat list of globs, expect a list of (dir, globs, recursive) tuples. For convenience we could define an adaptor function "def match(dir=None, globs=('*',), recursive=True)" to create the triples from the provided args. |
|
|
| msg85383 - (view) |
Author: Tarek Ziadé (tarek) * |
Date: 2009-04-04 08:27 |
| After some discussion at Pycon, I was convinced that MANIFEST.in should be removed. I'll send a mail about this in Distutils-SIG and if there's a consensus, I'll deprecate it and also add glob pattern for package_data. |
|
|
| msg103730 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2010-04-20 15:54 |
| Hello Tarek, could you briefly explain the arguments that convinced you? If MANIFEST.in is removed, perhaps we could use convention instead of configuration to categorize files, like what DistutilsExtra does: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~python-distutils-extra-hackers/python-distutils-extra/debian/annotate/head%3A/doc/README#L42 (Changing component and versions since Distutils is frozen) Regards |
|
|
| msg128496 - (view) |
Author: Alexis Metaireau (alexis) *  |
Date: 2011-02-13 14:19 |
| The MANIFEST.in is definitely gone in distutils2. Can we close that? (don't have the rights to do so ‑ it can be handy on distutils2 bugs) |
|
|
| msg128509 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2011-02-13 15:40 |
| Even if MANIFEST.in is gone, we still have a way to include files, so the request to allow globs to match directories still apply. |
|
|
| msg148276 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2011-11-24 16:33 |
| I need to fix this for distutils2’s next release (with #13463 and #5302), to include distutils2/tests/fake_dists. |
|
|
| msg148727 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2011-12-01 17:03 |
| As a first step for this, I moved around some things in the test file to ease coming additions. Can someone test this patch for the distutils2 repo on Windows? |
|
|
| msg152746 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2012-02-06 16:55 |
| One implementation by George Sakkis is found in this thread: http://bugs.python.org/issue2279#msg82213 There are subtle issues with this feature. For example, a glob pattern could match both package data files and Python submodules, leading to the same .py files being included as modules and data. I’ll see how far I want to specify the behavior in tests and docs. |
|
|
| msg154471 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2012-02-27 12:28 |
| For consistency with the resources section, a recursive glob should be mydata/**, not mydata/* or bare mydata. |
|
|
| msg155678 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2012-03-13 22:07 |
| Or on the contrary, we could remove the special, not-supported-by-other-parts-of-the-stdlib ** syntax and just expand somedir to match all files in subdir and descendents, in package_data and resources. I’ll make a patch for this idea to see how it looks. |
|
|
| msg155902 - (view) |
Author: Alexis Metaireau (alexis) * |
Date: 2012-03-15 16:22 |
| Agreed on this one. That would avoid to have a new syntax for this case, which seems to be very common. |
|
|
| msg163207 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2012-06-19 20:10 |
| Does this block 3.3b1? |
|
|
| msg163839 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-06-24 20:08 |
| Cannot block a release anymore, since packaging has gone. |
|
|
| msg163842 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2012-06-24 20:17 |
| I explained in another issue that I had been using priority release blocker + version third-party to keep track of distutils2 release blockers. This can be distracting for CPython devs and RMs so I’ll just use high now. |
|
|
| msg163846 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2012-06-24 20:24 |
| > I explained in another issue that I had been using priority release > blocker + version third-party to keep track of distutils2 release > blockers. This can be distracting for CPython devs and RMs so I’ll > just use high now. Woops, sorry. |
|
|
| msg193999 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2013-07-31 14:31 |
| packaging is not in the stdlib anymore, and the successors to distutils2 may or may not use package_data in setup.cfg. This is obsolete. |
|
|
| msg194035 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2013-08-01 08:23 |
| And this will hold up Python 3.4a1, as I can't close #13463 until this is closed first. So I'm closing this as wontfix. |
|
|