Add setup.py for setuptools

[ObserverOfTime]

This is related to issue #207.

I tried to keep changes to the codebase minimal but I had to edit syncplay.utils.findWorkingDir to find the path when installed via setuptools since resources/ is copied into syncplay/.
(You could probably use pkg_resources to load resources and avoid all the hassle.)

Once Syncplay is deployed to PyPI (which can be automated by Travis), installing it along with its optional dependencies will be as simple as pip3 install syncplay[gui,tls].

Environment info:

• OS: Antergos Linux 5.0.3-arch1-1-ARCH
• Python: Python 3.7.2
• pip: pip 18.1
• setuptools: setuptools 40.8.0

[albertosottile]

Thank you for this PR, we really appreciate it. We are currently working on implementing setuptools for Syncplay here, but I see some differences between this PR and our approach that are definitely worthy of a discussion.

Firstly, you used requirements*.txt files in the setup.py script. That's something we could do, too.

Secondly, you found a way to install the scripts without restructuring the package, by subclassing the InstallScripts class. While we considered that approach, we think that using entry points is the most natural and future-proof choice, given that they are recommended. So, we restructured some of the code to use entry points, instead of install scripts, as you can see here.

Thirdly, you subclassed BuildPy instead of actually moving the resources folder inside the syncplay one. While I appreciate that this script does not require to relocate the folder, I am afraid for the future support of this solution and of the possible bugs that it could cause. As an example, this setup.py script does not currently copy the resources folder when running it with sdist. Of course, this and other future bugs can be fixed, but maybe it would just be better to move the resources folder now and migrate Syncplay to the recommended file structure for a python package. This is the approach that I took in the fork so far.

In summary, I think we will reject this PR in favor of opening a new one, based on the work done so far in the fork linked above. I sincerely apologize for the time you already invested in working on this. In any case, I strongly encourage to review and contribute to the upcoming PR, since you seem very experienced with setuptools.

[ObserverOfTime]

Thank you for the response. That's all right, I just did it in an evening as a proof of concept mostly. I wasn't aware that you were already working on it in a fork. I'll be glad to offer my help, though I'm not really very experienced.

[Et0h]

Closed as setuptools is now supported via #231