[Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3 (original) (raw)

Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no
Fri Jun 22 11:22:14 CEST 2012

On 06/22/2012 10:40 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

On 22 June 2012 06:05, Nick Coghlan<ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

distutils really only plays at the SRPM level - there is no defined OS neutral RPM equivalent. That's why I brought up the bdistsimple discussion earlier in the thread - if we can agree on a standard bdistsimple format, then we can more cleanly decouple the "build" step from the "install" step. That was essentially the key insight I was trying to communicate in my "think about the end users" comment. Thanks, Nick!

The subtlety here is that there's no way to know before building the package what files should be installed. (For simple extensions, and perhaps documentation, you could get away with ad-hoc rules or special support for Sphinx and what-not, but there's no general solution that works in all cases.)

What Bento does is have one metadata file for the source-package, and another metadata file (manifest) for the built-package. The latter is normally generated by the build process (but follows a standard nevertheless). Then that manifest is used for installation (through several available methods).

Dag

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list