Thanks for the feedback everyone. Good to get some real-world input on
non-standard approaches like this. I'm going to try and steer the project
away from it.
And I agree that manage.py and setup.py are not interchangeable at all -
especially since not everything *goes* through manage.py.
./s
`manage.py` is ABSOLUTELY NOT a `setup.py`. It doesn't really matter how you
think.
`setup.py` is used for package managing while `manage.py` manages Django.
> On 8 Sep 2017, at 09:17, callsamle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> hi,
> yes, django has `setup.py`, that's `manage.py`,LOL
>
> depend on how
hi,
yes, django has `setup.py`, that's `manage.py`,LOL
depend on how you think.
if you code is like `tools`, that use `setup.py`
like your code is a `calculator`.
if not, that's many way to setup, like Fabric, Ansible,etc.
think this two word, `functional` and `system/project`
for python, see
I've seen this on a few projects before and each time transitioned the
project away from it.
As you note, for whatever advantages it seems like there may be, it's very
much atypical and also unnecessary. I don't see how it makes writing Fabric
tasks significantly easier (presumably you don't
I am accustomed to seeing pip-installable dependencies of a Django project
each have their own `setup.py`. I am not accustomed to seeing a Django
project *itself* have its own `setup.py`, but I am now working with a
project that does just that. The setup does not move the Django project
itself
5 matches
Mail list logo
