On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > David Cournapeau <cournape <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> I noticed that you put the classifiers list as a string (same for >> platform). I think it is expected to be a list, no ? > > That's an oversight; there are doubtless others, too.
Sure. I guess I was just trying to get at getting the code released in a repo so that we can provide patches :) > >> Maybe slightly more controversial, I think the manifest should be >> "evaluated". The current system of inclusion + exclusion is too >> baroque to my taste, and makes it near-impossible to make reproducible >> builds. > > Would you care to give a little more detail about what you mean by > "evaluate"? I've kept the manifest as it is for backward compatibility (i.e. > so that my sanity checking of sdist follows the logic as is used by > distutils/distribute). If you want to be backward compatible with distutils, then yes, you have to encode it as is. By evaluating, I meant specifying the list of files instead of using some higher level logic. Otherwise, the static format does not specify the actual content (and depends on way too many parameters). David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
