At 12:50 AM 5/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 06:01 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote:
>> >> > I don't see any point to the normalization.
>> >>
>> >> To avoid different naming conventions like:
>> >>
>> >> PKG-INFO, requires.txt, SOURCES.txt
>> >
>> > And the problem with that is...?
>>
>> inconsistency, but right, it makes no sense if any file/dir can be added
>> there.
>>
>> What about SOURCES.txt btw ? What is the reason to add it ?
>
> It's for source distributions. It allows them to be able to rebuild an
> identical source distribution in the absence of source control metadata.
>
> It's not really necessary for the installation process, although it's used
> to figure out which files to install if you use include_package_data=True.
>
Any particular reason to call it "SOURCES.txt" ?
Or we can call it MANIFEST (with '/'-separated relative path)
I called it SOURCES.txt because MANIFEST is ambiguous as to what it's
a manifest *of*, and also to distinguish it from any user-generated
MANIFEST file. (If you don't know about those, you're probably going
to break backward compatibility w/somebody, btw. Distutils usage is
a diverse collection of nightmares.)
Anyway, the name of the file has no bearing on what distutils does,
unless distutils is trying to implement the same feature as
setuptools: i.e. round-trippable sdists whose original manifest was
generated via revision control.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
