W dniu 15.06.2011 03:28, Ben Finney pisze:
If we are talking from a perspective of upstream developers that
also maintain their packages then I would *love* to see setup.py
sdist-test and would use it each day.
;-)
How would a putative ‘sdist_test’ differ from ‘test’? Why is this an
argument for a new command, and not an argument to improve what is done
by ‘test’ anyway?
Pure test runs the test on the check-out of the code and is usually
invoked by the upstream developer. It can (and often does) run on a
superset of files that are distributed with sdist).
In contrast, the theoretical sdist_test would first create a release
tarball with sdist, unpack it to some temporary directory and run
`setup.py test` there.
Such a command would be useful for checking that project manifest file
contains everything desired to make the program run correctly (I often
miss something and only realise it's missing when I start packaging).
IMHO it should be a separate command to ensure that 1) stuff that works
today keeps working 2) there is no performance penalty for running
setup.py test that would be required by setup.py sdist_test.
Best regards
ZK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
