Various Build System Improvements #971
Conversation
|
Looks like it is not following symbolic links. Needs a little bit more work |
|
By switching up the symlink so the actual files are in archinstall and the examples and profiles on the outer layer are the symlinks, it now seems to work. |
dylanmtaylor
changed the title
|
Hmm, symlinks are not quite working, but it's building now... |
|
What is the motivation behind this change? |
Based on the discussion here pypa/flit#522, it feels like it would make sense for us to pivot away from flit, so I am working on a PR to propose a change to more standard tooling. In addition, I am trying to address concerns that certain files which use symbolic links do not seem to be getting included in the final distribution due to 'not being a regular file'. |
|
Moving towards standard tooling does not require you to move away from flit, you can still use pypa/build with flit as a backend. If flit does not include symlinks in the distributions, but setuptools does, it could make sense to move, but it seems that even after that you are resorting to copying the files instead of keeping the symlinks, so I would guess it doesn't... |
Hmm, you might be right. At the moment, this is something I'm playing around with and not something we've committed to. I'll explore that path of using pypa/build with flit. That might be the best solution. |
dylanmtaylor
changed the title
…fied in classifiers.
|
I don't know if flit dropped symlink support or what - it looks like it used to work, but now it's not working anymore. I don't see the links in the final tarball. |
dylanmtaylor
changed the title
|
The files built by this now seem to be correctly following the symlinks. d909f80 seemed to be key to getting this working. |
|
Yea it used to follow symlinks, I have an issue reported upstream about it but haven’t gotten a response yet |
This closes #832.