On Monday, March 13, 2017 05:55:32 PM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/12/2017 11:34 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > On the other hand, I have seen very few pieces of software which had a
> > *comprehensive* MANIFEST.in for generating a tarball suitable for
> > packaging. The file is often either absent, or missing inclusion of the
> > docs, tests, change log or license files. Upstream is usually receptive
> > in providing "better" source tarballs, but I have had some developers
> > taking an aggressive stance towards keeping the PyPI tarball as minimal
> > as possible in the past.
> IMO, upstream are right that the PyPi releases should be minimal. They
> are, from my view point, a binary release, not a source release.
> It makes a lot of sense to therefore use the git repository, which is
> what I've been doing as much as possible.

I think they are a binary release if they release a wheel, but if they put an 
sdist on pypi (and I certainly always do), it's source.  That's what the 's' 
stands for.

Like Barry, I've never had an issue with upstreams fixing their MANIFEST.in so 
that the sdist is complete when I point out the issue.

Scott K

Reply via email to