
GITHUB . COM {
}
Detected CMS Systems:
- Wordpress (2 occurrences)
Title:
[FR] Default values for `packages` and `py_modules` Β· Issue #2887 Β· pypa/setuptools
Description:
What's the problem this feature will solve? The need for explicitly specifying packages and py_modules (together with package_dir) is often criticized as a pitfall of setuptools. Describe the s...
Website Age:
17 years and 8 months (reg. 2007-10-09).
Matching Content Categories {π}
- Social Networks
- Dating & Relationships
- Education
Content Management System {π}
What CMS is github.com built with?
Github.com is based on WORDPRESS.
Traffic Estimate {π}
What is the average monthly size of github.com audience?
ππ Tremendous Traffic: 10M - 20M visitors per month
Based on our best estimate, this website will receive around 10,000,019 visitors per month in the current month.
However, some sources were not loaded, we suggest to reload the page to get complete results.
check SE Ranking
check Ahrefs
check Similarweb
check Ubersuggest
check Semrush
How Does Github.com Make Money? {πΈ}
Subscription Packages {π³}
We've located a dedicated page on github.com that might include details about subscription plans or recurring payments. We identified it based on the word pricing in one of its internal links. Below, you'll find additional estimates for its monthly recurring revenues.How Much Does Github.com Make? {π°}
Subscription Packages {π³}
Prices on github.com are in US Dollars ($).
They range from $4.00/month to $21.00/month.
We estimate that the site has approximately 4,989,889 paying customers.
The estimated monthly recurring revenue (MRR) is $20,957,532.
The estimated annual recurring revenues (ARR) are $251,490,385.
Wordpress Themes and Plugins {π¨}
What WordPress theme does this site use?
It is strange but we were not able to detect any theme on the page.
What WordPress plugins does this website use?
It is strange but we were not able to detect any plugins on the page.
Keywords {π}
packages, abravalheri, discovery, package, pymodules, jaraco, pep, default, values, module, setuptools, issue, layout, sign, issues, distribution, src, exists, mentioned, commented, author, move, packagefinder, code, projects, change, added, status, discovered, support, namespace, comments, navigation, solutions, pull, requests, actions, security, describe, metadata, flat, missing, mypackage, directory, file, make, find, packagesmodules, alternative, response,
Topics {βοΈ}
add default values find default values redundant information required flit pypa/packaging 5f40095 abravalheri mentioned d1e67b0 abravalheri mentioned safe/backward-compatible toml-style configuration projects milestone response code entries file system discovery mechanism found single script layout top-level package alternative solutions psf code change backward compatible abravalheri added comment metadata assignees directory my_package exists directory src exists single-module package common modules/packages additional modules/packages triage issues default discover abravalheri mentioned support namespace packages package/module discovery missing values docs jaraco removed config packaging issues values default existing metadata file my_package config project namespace package support pyproject package discovery auto discovery 'discovery' module automatic discovery flat layout src layout status basic project installable package
Payment Methods {π}
- Braintree
Questions {β}
- Already have an account?
- What's the problem this feature will solve?
Schema {πΊοΈ}
DiscussionForumPosting:
context:https://schema.org
headline:[FR] Default values for `packages` and `py_modules`
articleBody:### What's the problem this feature will solve?
The need for explicitly specifying `packages` and `py_modules` (together with `package_dir`) is often [criticized as a pitfall of setuptools](https://blog.ionelmc.ro/2015/02/24/the-problem-with-packaging-in-python/).
### Describe the solution you'd like
Setuptools could rely on the existing metadata (`name` of the distribution) and the conventions of the ecosystem (namely the "flat layout", "src layout" or "single script layout") to fill the missing values.
For example, given `name = my_package` in `setup.cfg` (and the values for `packages` and `py_modules` are missing):
- if the directory `my_package` exists, then it should be used as top-level package ("flat layout")
- if the directory `src` exists, then it should be scanned for packages ("src layout")
- if the file `my_package.py` exists, then it is a single-module package.
I believe that it is possible to make this change backward compatible, by only trying to find default values if both `packages` and `py_modules` are not given (this circumstance would usually create a distribution without packages/modules).
### Alternative Solutions
_No response_
### Additional context
_No response_
### Code of Conduct
- [X] I agree to follow the PSF Code of Conduct
author:
url:https://github.com/abravalheri
type:Person
name:abravalheri
datePublished:2021-11-15T21:48:03.000Z
interactionStatistic:
type:InteractionCounter
interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
userInteractionCount:4
url:https://github.com/2887/setuptools/issues/2887
context:https://schema.org
headline:[FR] Default values for `packages` and `py_modules`
articleBody:### What's the problem this feature will solve?
The need for explicitly specifying `packages` and `py_modules` (together with `package_dir`) is often [criticized as a pitfall of setuptools](https://blog.ionelmc.ro/2015/02/24/the-problem-with-packaging-in-python/).
### Describe the solution you'd like
Setuptools could rely on the existing metadata (`name` of the distribution) and the conventions of the ecosystem (namely the "flat layout", "src layout" or "single script layout") to fill the missing values.
For example, given `name = my_package` in `setup.cfg` (and the values for `packages` and `py_modules` are missing):
- if the directory `my_package` exists, then it should be used as top-level package ("flat layout")
- if the directory `src` exists, then it should be scanned for packages ("src layout")
- if the file `my_package.py` exists, then it is a single-module package.
I believe that it is possible to make this change backward compatible, by only trying to find default values if both `packages` and `py_modules` are not given (this circumstance would usually create a distribution without packages/modules).
### Alternative Solutions
_No response_
### Additional context
_No response_
### Code of Conduct
- [X] I agree to follow the PSF Code of Conduct
author:
url:https://github.com/abravalheri
type:Person
name:abravalheri
datePublished:2021-11-15T21:48:03.000Z
interactionStatistic:
type:InteractionCounter
interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
userInteractionCount:4
url:https://github.com/2887/setuptools/issues/2887
Person:
url:https://github.com/abravalheri
name:abravalheri
url:https://github.com/abravalheri
name:abravalheri
InteractionCounter:
interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
userInteractionCount:4
interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
userInteractionCount:4
External Links {π}(3)
Analytics and Tracking {π}
- Site Verification - Google
Libraries {π}
- Clipboard.js
- D3.js
- Lodash
Emails and Hosting {βοΈ}
Mail Servers:
- aspmx.l.google.com
- alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
- alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
- alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
- alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
Name Servers:
- dns1.p08.nsone.net
- dns2.p08.nsone.net
- dns3.p08.nsone.net
- dns4.p08.nsone.net
- ns-1283.awsdns-32.org
- ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk
- ns-421.awsdns-52.com
- ns-520.awsdns-01.net