On 23 March 2014 23:13, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now you begin to see the scope of the problem. It's definitely solvable, but > means asking a whole pile of "required, recommended or distutils-specific?" > questions about the existing distutils and setuptools build system :) > > "pip already relies on it" sets the minimum for the "required" category, but > there's more to a full build system abstraction than what pip currently > supports.
OK, I see now. So the ultimate build system will include pip changes to supply build-time options in an as-yet unspecified manner. There's certainly no way I can do all of that myself, I don't have remotely the level of experience with complex build requirements. But I can probably take the first steps, and leave it to people with the experience to add to it. No promises on timescales but I'll see what I can do. One thought. do we want to use a setup.py script as the interface, with all its historical baggage, or would we be better using a new script name as the "official" interface (with pip falling back to equivalent setup.py invocations when that script isn't present, for backward compatibility)? Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig