Re: Ideal directory structure?
On 30/01/10 20:12, Guy Hulbert wrote:
appending lib to everything is really ugly* ... is it because
./appname.py
./appname/__init__.py
fails to work ?
[*] And the debian perl group pre-pend 'lib' to all the packaged perl
modules so you'd have libappnamelib-V.deb
Yes. I asked this question before it fails to work.
Anyway, thank you all for your very useful feedback. Lots has been
clarified.
Guy wrote:
It is useful to be able to run a package without installing it for
development and testing.
Yes. Exactly.
So, there seem to be two alternate ways of going about this:
1. suffix lib to the package and run ./foo as you would and develop
without installing each time.
2. don't suffix lib, but put the executable in foo/bin/ then use
Severin's solution.
I think the second is better.
First, I agree with Guy that foolib doesn't sound good to me. It might
even be wrong to call it foolib, because a library (to me) does
something useful that is useful to more than one program. However, my
foolib will have 99.9% of my code. foolib _is_ my program, it's not a
library. foo simply starts the whole process - parses command line
options, initiates classes and calls the appropriate methods.
Secondly, Severin's solution seems elegant to me. All the dirty work is
hidden in a .sh file, and not in python code, which would bring in
unnecessary stuff. Since I will only add it in MANIFEST.in, it will
appear in the setup.py sdist, but not with setup.py install and ∴not in
my debian package either. Extremely convenient.
The initial discussion about Setuptools and autoconf went over my head.
Maybe I'll come back to read that when I am more experienced.
Thank you all, again!
Umang
Reply to: