Skip to content
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

Initial checkout of setuptools depends on egg-info #278

Closed
ghost opened this issue Oct 25, 2014 · 1 comment
Closed

Initial checkout of setuptools depends on egg-info #278

ghost opened this issue Oct 25, 2014 · 1 comment

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 25, 2014

Originally reported by: jaraco (Bitbucket: jaraco, GitHub: jaraco)


In Pull Request #94 and Pull Request #101, Marc is working on a technique to address the issue that the egg-info is present in the repo, so subtle changes to the environment (such as Python version) can cause those files to be modified.

The reason the files in the current implementation are modified is because they can actually change. For example, when six was added as a dependency in the (yet unreleased) fix for #229, the egg-info changed: 5cb125f2eaf3. So while this Pull Request #101 prevents egg-info from being re-written, it doesn't provide a way for the egg-info to be updated when it's actually necessary.

I think now that setuptools is on a stable Python 3 compatible code base, many of the issues around the in-repo egg-info may have subsided.

Ideally, the solution should involve allowing setuptools to bootstrap itself from a fresh checkout, by allowing egg_info to be invoked from a fresh checkout. It shouldn't need to keep a copy in the repo.

It seems setuptools at one time supported bootstrapping from a fresh checkout.


@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 25, 2014

Original comment by jaraco (Bitbucket: jaraco, GitHub: jaraco):


Adding 'bootstrap.py' for bootstrapping a development environment when setuptools metadata isn't already present. Fixes #278.

@ghost ghost closed this as completed Mar 29, 2016
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

0 participants