Ben Finney wrote: > David Cournapeau <da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes: > > >> Ben Finney wrote: >> >>> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> It doesn't make sense to have the list of the files in .svn or >>>> .hg files. for your package. >>>> >>> Again, why not? If I'm using a VCS for my source files, then the >>> VCS is the Single Point of Truth for the inventory of source >>> files. >>> >> depending on your definition of sources, it is not. The VCS is there to >> track a project, but sdist is a *distribution* mean. It is a packaged >> version of your software - simple, but packaged nonetheless. There has >> to be a (potential) difference between what goes in sdist and what is >> recorded in the VCS. Python packaging is the only tool I am aware which >> say both are equal. >> > > Okay, but that's a far cry from saying that it “doesn't make sense” to > use the VCS inventory. >
Not that a far cry: python packaging tools are the only systems that I know of which does this. For example, in autotools, the tarball generated by make dist is never generated from the VCS. I may have some weird tools in my VCS, or some huge test data, things which do not make sense to distribute. > >> The duplication argument could be made the other way: why >> duplicating with sdist what the VCS offers you ? >> > > Yes, that's exactly my point. > Maybe I was not clear, but my point cannot be further from your suggestion :) sdist should not use the VCS, because a source tarball generated from the VCS and from sdist are not the same thing at all. If you want a source checkout (which is what sdist does if you use the VCS), then use the VCS. Most good systems offer a service to automatically generate the source from the VCS if you need to make it available to people wo the VCS (trac, git and hg web frontends, etc...). cheers, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
