Is it on purpose that pex_binary can't include shell_sources or am I messing up somewhere? I have a tool that sub processes out to more shell code than Python and want to use the pex machinery to package it into a nice standalone bin. Do I have to make them resources? I remember there was discussion to remove the restriction on non-rc files because facilities like Path(file) make it easy to avoid the pitfall noted in the docs—was a design consensus reached on that? I also didn't know other target types would fall under the files target umbrella—I take it you only have python sources and resources?
09/08/2022, 12:35 AM
Yes, you have to make them resources currently. It's a sordid story @bitter-ability-32190 is working on.
09/08/2022, 12:52 AM
Yeah TLDR pants has to make assumptions about the types of things in the dependencies field. And ignores anything that doesn't fall into that assumption 😔
To answer your question, declare it also as a resource
09/08/2022, 1:00 AM
Thank you. I don't know why but I thought I had previously been able to package shell scripts. 🤷♂️