On 12.05.2014 22:37, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On May 12, 2014, at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Binary installs are nice, but they are not the answer to everything >>>> and no matter how much meta data you put into static files, >>>> there will always be cases where that meta data description just >>>> doesn't include those bits you would need to complete the setup, >>>> esp. for packages with C extensions and more complex external >>>> dependencies or setup requirements. (*) >>>> >>>> The setup.py interface makes all this possible, which is why so >>>> many Python packages use it to configure themselves automatically. >>>> >>>> Deprecating this interface would make some distributions impossible >>>> to install without manual user intervention and we'd be back to the >>>> Makefile.pre.in days. >>>> >>>> I don't think that's a good idea. It still is a very good idea >>>> to make more meta data available in static non-executable form >>>> in order to simplify finding packages, determining >>>> dependencies, features, enhancing the PyPI UI, and for >>>> deciding which distribution file to download and install. >>>> >>>> This can be generated by setup.py as part of the build process >>>> and made available to PyPI during package release registration >>>> (much like it is now, only in extended form). >>>> >>>> (*) This does work if you are only targeting a few select systems and >>>> system versions, but the Python user base out just has too many >>>> diverse setups to be able to address them all to be able to >>>> completely drop setup.py. >>> >>> This is slightly confusing but pip will always be able to go from an sdist >>> to >>> an installed system. It'll just build a Wheel first and then install the >>> Wheel >>> (at least that's the idea). This is a sort of vague idea right now but it's >>> the >>> direction we want to go in. >> >> Ah, so this is just a misunderstanding on my part then. I thought >> Paul was saying that having pip run setup.py will go away. >> >> Thanks for the clarification, >> > > I should expand on that answer, that sdist 2.0 will ideally include static > metadata but it won't be a static build system. Things like name, version, > dependencies etc will be static, but building will be done by executing some > code.
Now, you've got me really confused. Is this something I can read up somewhere ? sdists already includes static package information in the PKG-INFO file (format 1.0, but that could be changed to e.g. 2.0). -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source >>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
