guidance needed: best practice for script packaging

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:35:37 -0300, Alan Isaac <aisaac at american.edu>  
escribió:

> This is a simple question about actual practice.
> I just want to know how you (yes you) are
> approaching this problem.
>
> The problem:
> What is the recommended packaging of
> demo scripts or test scripts for a package
> to be distributed to others to "play with".
> (I.e., without "installing".)
>
> Example:
> Suppose I have the package structure:
>
> package/
>     __init__.py
>     subpackage1/
>         __init__.py
>         moduleXX.py
>     subpackage2/
>         __init__.py
>         moduleYY.py
>
> Important detail:
> moduleXX uses a relative import to access moduleYY.

I put test/demo/main scripts *outside* the package - that would be the  
directory containing "package" here.
This way, "import package" works, and intra-package relative references  
work too.

> The goal:
> I have a script test.py that I want to
> distribute with the package.  This script will import
> moduleXX to illustrate or test the module's use.
>
> Is it the case that this script cannot reasonably be
> bundled with `package`?  (I.e., within its directory
> structure.)

Yes, perhaps there is no reasonably/good/non-hackish way to bundle it  
inside "package". At least I don't know how to do that and also keep  
relative imports working at the same time, without playing with sys.path  
and such things.

> Here is one hack, based on a suggestion of Alex Martelli
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-May/438250.html
> and others.
> - add a `scripts` subdirectory to `package`
> - use path manipulation to find the directory holding `package`
> - insert this directory in sys.path

I use directly the parent directory (not a "scripts" subdirectory) because  
it is already in sys.path (being the current directory where the script  
resides). And I have only one or two such scripts, so it's not a big  
problem for me if they are not grouped in its own directory.

> I do not want to assume the package will be installed:
> a user should be able to play with it without installing it.

What I suggest works in this case too.

> This is a repeat question.  The usual rule is, if you do not get an  
> answer, you
> are asking the question in an unhelpful way.  If my question is still  
> unclear, I
> would appreciate any leads on how to clarify it.

I read your previous post, but since I didn't feel that I had a "good"  
answer I didn't reply the first time. I were waiting for someone to  
enlighten me too on this topic...

(Certainly rephrasing the question is a smart move - but most people  
aren't as smart as you and just keep posting the same thing over and  
over...)

-- 
Gabriel Genellina