Message158059
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
alexis, eric.araujo, erik.bray, tarek |
| Date |
2012年04月11日.17:33:09 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1334165590.58.0.985527003724.issue14549@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
IMO the best behavior would be to always recurse and have an option to exclude specific submodules. When the Django devs want to package their code, they think about a Python package named django, docs and scripts, not about django, django.views, django.http, etc. I proposed glob syntax or a new key to be conservative, but now I’ll add a third proposal:
packages = foo
packages-exclude = foo.spam
For a package foo with subpackages ham and spam, this would get foo and foo.ham.
Note that this was discussed on the fellowship ML two years ago but I don’t have the time to re-read the thread now.
(Why is it not named exclude-packages? 1) you can exclude single-file modules too with this option 2) it makes it clear that it’s a "sub-option" of packages)
About extension modules sources: good idea, but it should be its own feature request. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年04月11日 17:33:10 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, tarek, alexis, erik.bray |
| 2012年04月11日 17:33:10 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1334165590.58.0.985527003724.issue14549@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年04月11日 17:33:10 | eric.araujo | link | issue14549 messages |
| 2012年04月11日 17:33:09 | eric.araujo | create |
|