On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 6:58 AM, P.J. Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > At 05:11 PM 4/22/2010 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: >> >> Or maybe this constitutes "working" for distutils. ;) > > It does, I'm afraid. The problem is that the build is also a dry run, so > the files aren't there for the later bits to actually copy. > > It might be better to do a dry run mechanism based mainly on setuptools' > sandboxing code -- the sandbox framework could be extended to allow faking > all file operations that go through normal Python APIs. (i.e. not external > commands like compilers; those would of course fail unless separately > faked.)
Right, I think sandboxing would be a better solution, less intrusive to the code, and this would work for *any* distutils command out there. Now my question is about setuptools' sandbox : it seems to me that it was only making sure a setup script wasn't trynig to write outside a given directory, using DirectorySandbox. 1- How this tool could be used to record the writings ? Would we need to subtype AbstractSandbox ? 2- If 1/ is doable, what about making this tool its own standalone project ? that would be useful for many projects Regards Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
