On Jun 19, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
On Jun 19, 2009, at 13:54 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
It isn't so easy for setuptools to know which things ought to have
+x and which things ought not just based on their pathnames or
other metadata.
Unless you specify explicitly it in a metadata file.
My argument is that using a metadata-preserving archive format
allows a programmer to control that stuff and also allows setuptools
(or distutils, I guess) to ignore that stuff. Inventing a way to
pass that information through the metadata requires the programmer
to learn and use an extra configuration on top of what they already
do, and requires setuptools (distutils) to pay attention to that
stuff.
Having an archive format that preserves such bits would probably
be a good way to solve all such problems -- by making it the
packagers problems to set the bits before packaging rather than
setuptools's problem to figure out which bits ought to be set
after installation.
How would you create such an archive on Windows? (A serious
question, not trying to be argumentative.)
You mean a bdist? You can't "cross-compile" and build a bdist for
Linux on Windows (can you?), or vice versa. I think we're only
talking about "non-cross-compiled" bdists here.
A metadata-preserving archive format wouldn't make this harder, and
it might make it easier.
I think he mean how to do a sdist on windows that has +x on executable
python scripts? I don't know the answer but it might be a good case
for metadata external to the filesystem.
--
Leonardo Santagada
santagada at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
