Created on 2012-04-11 16:42 by eric.araujo, last changed 2012-04-11 17:33 by eric.araujo.
|msg158053 - (view)||Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) *||Date: 2012-04-11 16:42|
For projects with more than a few packages, it is tedious to list all subpackages manually in setup.cfg. There was once a find_packages in distutils2.util (copied from distribute), but when we moved away from setup.py it was removed (I don’t remember all the details). A new field would be best if we could find a good name, or we could have special syntax in the existing packages field (like “packages = distutils2.*”).
|msg158054 - (view)||Author: Erik Bray (erik.bray)||Date: 2012-04-11 17:09|
+1 for the wildcard syntax.
|msg158055 - (view)||Author: Erik Bray (erik.bray)||Date: 2012-04-11 17:13|
Potential downside: Say I have foo, foo.bar, and foo.tests. I want to install foo and foo.bar, but not foo.tests. Then I have to manually list all the packages I do want: packages = foo foo.bar That's fine, but one nice thing about find_packages is that it had an optional exclude argument. So maybe in addition to the wildcard syntax it couldn't hurt to add an exclude-packages option? I don't think that would be too complicated. Something similar for extension module sources would also be desirable.
|msg158059 - (view)||Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) *||Date: 2012-04-11 17:33|
IMO the best behavior would be to always recurse and have an option to exclude specific submodules. When the Django devs want to package their code, they think about a Python package named django, docs and scripts, not about django, django.views, django.http, etc. I proposed glob syntax or a new key to be conservative, but now I’ll add a third proposal: packages = foo packages-exclude = foo.spam For a package foo with subpackages ham and spam, this would get foo and foo.ham. Note that this was discussed on the fellowship ML two years ago but I don’t have the time to re-read the thread now. (Why is it not named exclude-packages? 1) you can exclude single-file modules too with this option 2) it makes it clear that it’s a “sub-option” of packages) About extension modules sources: good idea, but it should be its own feature request.
|2012-04-11 17:33:10||eric.araujo||set||messages: + msg158059|
|2012-04-11 17:13:35||erik.bray||set||messages: + msg158055|
|2012-04-11 17:09:10||erik.bray||set||messages: + msg158054|