[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3 (original) (raw)

Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Oct 16 23:13:55 CEST 2011

Éric Araujo <merwok 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 , it fails to work in the same way as pysetup3 install where the is a recursive zip of . 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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list