At 02:30 PM 9/27/2007 -0400, Yannick Gingras wrote: >"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Distribution would be best; I don't want setuptools invoking > > executables on the off-chance that they're installed. It would add > > overhead to every operation. To be considered for inclusion in > > setuptools proper, I would need it to perform all its operations > > without needing an external program, and a reference to the file > > format it's using so I don't end up having to support it with no idea > > how it works. > > > > For separately distributed file-finder plugins, it's okay for them to > > depend on external programs, since presumably a user who installs the > > plugin has the needed programs. > >Fair enough. The git file format is a bit ugly and using git to parse >it is probably the most sensible thing to do. External distribution >is a perfectly reasonable solution. > >Is there a naming convention for SCM plugins? Could Setuptools add a >list of available plugins on it's website? I know there is a pluging >for Mercurial: > > http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/hg.setuptools/ > >But without a naming conventions, I would not be likely to find a >plugin for a particular SCM even it exists.
Well, you can search for your SCM on PyPI, which works for Mercurial and bzr, at least. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
