[Pythonmac-SIG] Should buildpkg mangle resource file names or not?
Jack Jansen
Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com
Fri, 13 Sep 2002 22:54:15 +0200
Here's a question that came up in a private discussion between
Dinu and me, and I'd like to get other people to think about it
too.
Dinu's original implementation of buildpkg.py copied a
pre-defined set of files from the resource directory to the
package. These files had to exist with the package name in
there, i.e. "Python 2.3a1.pre_install".
I modified this so that a file that was simply called
"pre_install" would be copied into the package as "Python
2.3a1.pre_install". This has the advantage that you can use your
resource-source-directory for multiple distributions, because
the filenames in there are not dependent on the installer
package name. For one thing, this would allow me to put the
resource-source-directory for the Python installer under CVS
more easily.
Dinu then sent me a patch that copies *all* files from the
resource-source-directory. This is arguably better (as you can
include sub-scripts, and as it allows the inclusion of resources
that buildpkg isn't aware of), but it would break the generic
name scheme I had done.
Which scheme is better? Or should we do both? How?
--
- Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com>
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution --
Emma Goldman -