[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3

[Vinay Sajip]

Éric Araujo <merwok <at> netwok.org> writes:
> [Vinay]
> > A simple change to packaging will allow an archive containing a
> > setup.cfg-based > > directory to be installed in the same way as a
> > source directory.
> Isn’t that already supported, as long as the tarball or zipfile contains
> source files?  In any case, it was intended to be, and there’s still
> support code around.

No, by which I mean - if you have a simple zip of a project directory#
containing a setup.cfg, and run pysetup3 install <zipname>, it fails to work
in the same way as pysetup3 install <dir> where the <zipname> is a recursive
zip of <dir>. However, a two-line change enables this:

http://goo.gl/pd51J

> Correct.  I’m still pondering whether I find the idea of registering
> built files in setup.cfg as elegant or hacky :)  We also have the other
> ideas I wrote to choose from.

On Linux, if we're building from source, of course we use the build_ext step
to capture the built artifacts. However, how else could you do it on Windows,
when you're not actually building? The built files could be named in the
[extension:] section rather than the [files] section - the former means that
you have to add code to deal with it, the latter is less elegant but would
require less work to make it happen.

> > 3. Ideally, the GUI should co-operate with venvs, by offering some
> > form of browse facility. The command line does this automatically.
> Will Windows users want a GUI to create venvs too?

I don't think this is needed for venv creation, but having a "Find Other..."
to locate an alternative Python in a virtual env doesn't seem too onerous for
the user.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip