Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: I temporarily retract my request for addition of build_distinfo.
Other build_spam/install_spam commands have clear responsibilities: build creates files, install moves them. This is the classic make/make install division of work, where you may want to run build frequently when updating C code, and you may want to run install as root. For the dist-info files, we’ve seen that the RECORD file cannot be generated at build time, only install time, so splitting a build_distinfo command out of install_distinfo does not make sense. The develop command can continue to call install_distinfo in the build dir, writing a RECORD file containing only the path to the pth file. (Let’s continue that discussion on the develop bug.) For the test command, we could either require people to run develop, or run install_distinfo in the build dir. I think the latter is nicer. Who wants to make a patch for that? For the resources API, which should work even in an unbuilt checkout or unarchived tarball, that’s another bug. ---------- resolution: -> later stage: needs patch -> _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12279> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
