On Wed, 13 May 2009 20:58:08 -0700 Christopher Lee <l...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
> I tend to agree with Istvan. What is the idea of setuptools-git? > Just to take every file that's checked into git, and automatically > add it to the manifest for the package? That seems like overkill... Not really, given Setuptools does this on its own for CVS and Subversion repositories and the plug-in in question is a single Python script less than one kilobyte long, whose entire purpose is to provide setuptools with a wrapper for 'git ls-files'. > (classic example: the pyrex generated C files which allow people to > build pygr even if they don't have pyrex installed...) This one is actually mentioned in setuptools documentation, their recommendation is simply to include the C files in the repository. In my opinion, we should avoid manifest files unless using them files helps us manage binary packages as well (just to make things clear: the whole "manifest vs. git plug-in for setuptools" applies ONLY to source packages). We've already got Git tracking our sources, why add another, potentially more error-prone way of doing exactly the same? -- MS --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to pygr-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pygr-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
