On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin Root <ben.v.r...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2013 11:37 PM, "PJ Eby" <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.v.r...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > In creating a source distribution, I have found a disparity between the > > > behaviors of distutils and setuptools with respect to package_data. As > of > > > python Issue 2279: http://bugs.python.org/issue2279, entries listed in > > > package_data are used when building an sdist. I have verified that this > > > works in a simple example when setup() is imported from distutils.core. > > > However, if I import setup() from setuptools, it does not pull in the > data > > > as listed in package_data (and presumedly data_files). > > > > You need to use the include_package_data = True flag. > > > > I did and it didn't make a difference. Plus, shouldn't it have picked up > everything that I had version controlled, anyway? Does setuptools recognize > the new svn 1.7 format? Even svn 1.6 clients will refuse to do an 'svn > status' on a 1.7 repo checkout. So, I think there might be multiple bugs in > play. > > I also don't see why I should have to use that keyword argument if > distutils does fine without it. sdist isnt -- from my perspective -- a > setuptools specific feature, so I had no expectation of there being such an > egregious difference. > > > > > > P.S. - on a related note, for a package "foo", foo.egg-info directory > is > > > created with a SOURCES.txt file. I have found that under certain > situations, > > > it seems that a successful install would result in a fully listed > > > SOURCES.txt, and then subsequent calls to sdist seems to use that > > > information to build seemingly correct archives. A co-working > > > double-checking a deployment process I made did an sdist and created a > > > source distribution without the package_data when he did a fresh > checkout, > > > but whenever I did it from my development branch, the source > distribution > > > worked fine. I haven't figured out exactly how this came about, but it > seems > > > to be tied to the SOURCES.txt file. > > > > SOURCES.txt mostly exists so that you can safely build an sdist from > > an sdist, as is required by e.g. bdist_rpm, without having any > > revision control data on hand to guide the process. Setuptools also > > can insert a possibly-modified setup.cfg into an sdist for the same > > reason, so that if you used revision control tags to specify the > > version when building the sdist, any sdists rebuilt from that sdist > > will have the same version tags. > > Yes, I understand what sources.txt is for. The issue is that it seems that > it is possible for different build commands to produce different source.txt > results. Since I haven't figured out how I managed to do that, it isn't the > focus of my bug report. > > Cheers! > Ben Root > Stranger and stranger still... So, on a hunch, I tried making sure I had the latest version of setuptools installed (mine existing install was a little over a year old). On one system, easy_install found "setuptools 1.1.6" and installed it. After that, by setup.py script behaved exactly as expected on my demo package I mocked up to test out the bug. No need for "include_package_data", or MANIFEST.in or version control, just package_data. Great! To double-check, I tried it on another system (same version of python), and easy_install found "setuptools 1.1.6" as well and installed it. But the bug demo I made didn't work. Using "pydoc setuptools", it seems to have been pointing to distribute 0.6.28 for some reason. I retried "easy_install -U setuptools", and this time it found "distribute 0.7.3". After installing, "pydoc setuptools" now says that it is "setuptools 1.1.6". Why it didn't say that before, I haven't a clue. But the bug example package I made then worked. Don't know what to make of all that, but in the end, package_data did work as expected. I will point out that even with setuptools 1.1.6, sdist isn't picking up all the files in version control, as I have a few other files under version control in my package that I didn't list for package_data. So, I still think there is an issue with crawling an SVN 1.7 repository. Cheers! Ben Root
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
