Issue #57 new

Integrate functionality from check-manifest

Russell Keith-Magee
created an issue

A common problem with Python packaging is creating and maintaining an accurate MANIFEST/ file. It's easy to add a new submodule or piece of documentation, forget to include it in your MANIFEST, upload a release to PyPI, then have to issue a new point release to correct the problem.

check-manifest is a package that addresses this problem. If you run the command, it builds a source distribution and checks to see if there are files in the source directory that aren't in the package distribution; if there are missing files, it suggests rules that would correct the omission. It can also be used to generate an initial for a project.

In my opinion, check-manifest is sufficiently useful functionality that it warrants being part of setuptools itself.

Comments (6)

  1. Russell Keith-Magee reporter

    The working parts of check-manifest is a single source file, so it should be fairly easy to integrate as a setuptools command.

    There's a potential licensing issue. check-manifest is released under GPLv2+. However, the author indicates in the source code that they're open to MIT as a licensing option. They might be open to PSF licensing too.

  2. Jason R. Coombs

    It doesn't seem unreasonable to include check-manifest in setuptools, though it's not immediately obvious to me that it belongs in setuptools. I have some additional questions as well. If it were incorporated, where would the code be maintained? Would Marius Gedminas maintain it in the setuptools codebase or would it also be maintained in the separate project?

    I'm actually more inclined than I used to be to have more separation between projects, to allow them to be separately developed and be loosely coupled.

    At the very least, check-manifest should first implement a 'distutils.commands' entry point, demonstrating how it might work when integrated with setuptools. Or would it not implement a distutils command (e.g. python check-manifest)?

    Another concern is 'argparse'. Check-manifest imposes additional install requirements. I'm not sure what effect having install requirements on setuptools would have to bootstrapping setuptools.

    Given these considerations, I'm slightly inclined to decline the offer to integrate check-manifest with setuptools, but I'm still open to the idea and am willing to be convinced.

  3. Marius Gedminas

    check-manifest is a crutch to work around some non-intuitive behavior in setuptools. Wouldn't it be better to fix the non-intuitive setuptools behavior instead?


    • When setuptools can detect files in your VCS, it puts them in sdist. When it can't, it silently doesn't. The silent failure is unpleasant, wouldn't it be better to explicitly ask for VCS files by passing an argument to and then fail with an error if the right setuptools VCS plugin is not installed or is outdated and no longer recognizes the SVN working tree format of the month, or if you run on a tarball snapshot of a VCS revision downloaded from GitHub instead of using a checkout?

    • Setuptools looks at old *.egg-info/SOURCES.txt and includes those files. When is this useful? Can we get rid of this heuristic?

    Of course there should be some thought put into backwards compatibility, because I'm sure there are people who rely on the current behavior.

  4. Log in to comment