Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Pythons makefile comment 000

Hrm, I think around is more how zc.buildout fits in the picture. In combination with find-links it can be a great way to maintain a consistent set of the kinds of tools you could run from make; but all packaged up for python. I think this use overlaps with workingenv. One of my pet gripes with setup.py has nothing to do with its utility. I like my build configuration to be declaritive. placing entry_points, version, and all sorts of other build facts in setup.py makes it a pain to consume that data else where. .egg-info is only available after the build has run. There does not seem to be a 'best practice' for sourcing entry-points etc from a seperate, declaritive, file. setup.cfg maybe but its not what I use.

A couple of buildout recipes I've been fooling around with: http://svn.wiretooth.com/svn/open/rsb_sourcesvn/trunk/ checkout sources from svn into a build out http://svn.wiretooth.com/svn/open/rsb_setupdevelop/trunk/ wraps zc.recipe.egg:scripts to do the equivelent of 'python setup.py develop' Illustrate the way my setup.py usage is going these days.

And then I tend to have a 'toolbox' buildout that pulls in this config http://svn.wiretooth.com/svn/open/share/zc.buildout.cfgs/python-development-tools.cfg

Using buildouts 'config from url' trick.

All that said, your OP is spot on, its not make we are all missing.

Comment on Re: Pythons makefile comment 000
by robinbryce