On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 5:12 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> When you say "which could be solved relatively easily" I suggest that >>> you take the time to add concise and precise proposals in >>> bugs.python.org so I can work on them. >> >> Technically, it is easy. Only have two mechanisms for data files: one >> for installed data files, and one for extra source files (as done in >> automake for example): >> - Extra files only need to be listed (and included in sdist) >> - Install data files need a target directory. One of the problem >> with distutils here is that you can only hardcode paths - in my own >> packaging solution, I use $path variables so that any path defined >> internally can be reused ($bindir, etc...); something similar could be >> defined in distutils. > > distutils uses install schemes with variables too ($base, etc), that > are expanded at installation time. and differs depending on the > options you pass to the install command. > (look at the command/install module)
To be clear: I am talking about the POV of the setup.py writer here. AFAIK, those $path variables are not available in this case: when using data_files, you only have the choice between using absolute files or relative to package path. That's why you had to advise one poster to move his files into a package in one recent email, and that the only solution to another poster was to create a new command (to access those $path vars). The notion of data vs package data does not make much sense IMHO. All current methods should be deprecated, to the profit of the only difference that matters: installed vs non-installed data files. cheers, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
