On Monday, March 13, 2017 05:55:32 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 03/12/2017 11:34 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > On the other hand, I have seen very few pieces of software which had a > > *comprehensive* MANIFEST.in for generating a tarball suitable for > > packaging. The file is often either absent, or missing inclusion of the > > docs, tests, change log or license files. Upstream is usually receptive > > in providing "better" source tarballs, but I have had some developers > > taking an aggressive stance towards keeping the PyPI tarball as minimal > > as possible in the past. > > IMO, upstream are right that the PyPi releases should be minimal. They > are, from my view point, a binary release, not a source release. > > It makes a lot of sense to therefore use the git repository, which is > what I've been doing as much as possible.
I think they are a binary release if they release a wheel, but if they put an sdist on pypi (and I certainly always do), it's source. That's what the 's' stands for. Like Barry, I've never had an issue with upstreams fixing their MANIFEST.in so that the sdist is complete when I point out the issue. Scott K
