On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tarek Ziadé <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/9/11 <[email protected]>: >> On 02:33 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> I'm a little skeptical about creating a new mini language (particularly one >> with branching) for setup.cfg,
Me too. >> but I haven't really been paying close >> attention to this discussion. Me neither. :) >> Still, it might be good to give a brief >> summary of the justification for this someplace. Maybe you were already >> planning to do that. > > The idea is to be able to get with setup.cfg all the metadata without running > any code from the distribution, and without installing it. > > Which is possible for most cases. (if not possible, setup.py can still be > used) > > the mini-language is to be able to adapt these metadata depending on > the execution context. I'll add a doc somewhere. Is that really necessary? I mean, if you have to adapt the meta data to the execution context, maybe you should fall back to writing a setup.py. I agree that more background and motivational information would be very helpful, as would some real world examples. I know that >90% (maybe 99% :) of the packages I distribute don't adapt to their execution context (beyond what distutils does internally) or need anything but meta data. Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
