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

comparision to twine #1

Closed
gaborbernat opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

comparision to twine #1

gaborbernat opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
question User requests information

Comments

@gaborbernat
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,

How is this different than twine check, should this be integrated into twine check?

@jwodder
Copy link
Owner

jwodder commented Apr 9, 2020

twine check just checks whether your long description will render properly. check-wheel-contents checks that your wheel doesn't contain any *.pyc files; checks it doesn't contain any common toplevel names (tests, docs, src, etc.); checks that all toplevel objects are directories, Python modules, and/or *.pth files; optionally checks that the file tree in the wheel matches a local file tree; and other things (see the README for the full list). I wouldn't be opposed to having this integrated into twine check, but I don't know whether that's something the twine people would be interested in anyway. Some of the checks are a bit too opinion-based or conditional for something like twine, though, like the check for duplicate files (perfectly OK, just sometimes a sign something went wrong) or the check for modules without importable names (which can legitimately occur with alembic revision files whose hash starts with a digit).

@gaborbernat
Copy link
Contributor Author

Created issue upstream to check how much of this would be good to have there 😊

@jwodder jwodder added the question User requests information label Oct 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question User requests information
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants