On 4 September 2013 23:32, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 September 2013 14:27, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was under the impression pip *already* forced the use of setuptools >> (to ensure "--record" is available), so why would "pip wheel" provoke >> any more bug reports than "pip install"? > > It won't, but at the moment the reports are likely to be that *pip* is > where the error lies. We're saying that such reports will in future be > redirected at the project. That is the change. (It may be that it's > simply changing "can't fix" to "won't fix" - I don't know how > traditionally pip deals with such reports, if indeed it has ever had > any). > > There's no point in worrying though until we have evidence of such a > project actually existing. If no-one wants to try to check "likely > candidates" in advance, let's just wait for the bug reports if any.
More accurately, the response will still be "let's investigate and see exactly what's going wrong". The only real change is that "the project should change its setup.py to cope with the setuptools monkey-patching" will be a more likely resolution from the distribution tools side. Bugs in pip and setuptools are still a possibility, and modifying pip to not *need* the setuptools monkey-patching is still highly desirable. It's just not a blocker for anything else :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
