New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Including non-python files to package #223

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 16, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@glujan

glujan commented Oct 13, 2015

No description provided.

Grzegorz Janik Artur Frysiak
Including non-python files to package
fixes #127

 * Add Project.include_directory method
 * Include directories in distutils plugin
 * Add tests for Project._manifest_include_directory

arcivanov added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 16, 2015

Merge pull request #223 from glujan/i127
Including non-python files to package

@arcivanov arcivanov merged commit d8d25ca into pybuilder:master Oct 16, 2015

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage increased (+0.03%) to 70.236%
Details
@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Jan 7, 2016

Member

This doesn't add the files to the package_data section in the setup.py only the MANIFEST.in. Is that intended?

Member

esc commented Jan 7, 2016

This doesn't add the files to the package_data section in the setup.py only the MANIFEST.in. Is that intended?

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Jan 7, 2016

Member

cc @sdomme

Member

esc commented Jan 7, 2016

cc @sdomme

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc
Member

esc commented Jan 7, 2016

@mriehl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mriehl

mriehl Jan 8, 2016

Member

@esc isn't it enough to have a recursive include in the manifest? According to the docs this will add the folder to the tarball or whatever

Member

mriehl commented Jan 8, 2016

@esc isn't it enough to have a recursive include in the manifest? According to the docs this will add the folder to the tarball or whatever

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Jan 8, 2016

Member

No it isn't, this will only add the files to the tarball. When I install something with pip, however this downloads the tarball and then executes the setup.py contained within. Thus, with the current implementation, the files are in the tarball, but they are then not installed... I mean, it is fine if this is the intended purpose, but I don't yet see a use case for this.

Member

esc commented Jan 8, 2016

No it isn't, this will only add the files to the tarball. When I install something with pip, however this downloads the tarball and then executes the setup.py contained within. Thus, with the current implementation, the files are in the tarball, but they are then not installed... I mean, it is fine if this is the intended purpose, but I don't yet see a use case for this.

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Jan 10, 2016

Member

@glujan what was the intent of this feature?

Member

esc commented Jan 10, 2016

@glujan what was the intent of this feature?

@glujan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@glujan

glujan Jan 11, 2016

I didn't need installing those extra files at that time of writing but also
wasn't aware that I have to include them in setup.py for pip. Therefore I
think it should be considered as a bug.

I will write a patch for it.

@glujan https://github.com/glujan what was the intent of this feature?

glujan commented Jan 11, 2016

I didn't need installing those extra files at that time of writing but also
wasn't aware that I have to include them in setup.py for pip. Therefore I
think it should be considered as a bug.

I will write a patch for it.

@glujan https://github.com/glujan what was the intent of this feature?

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Sep 22, 2016

Member

hey, is this still broken? I need to deploy package resources.

Member

esc commented Sep 22, 2016

hey, is this still broken? I need to deploy package resources.

@esc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@esc

esc Sep 22, 2016

Member

If it is, what is the current best way to ship resources files?

Member

esc commented Sep 22, 2016

If it is, what is the current best way to ship resources files?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment