On May 12, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 12, 2014, at 4:50 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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). > > It's really not written up anywhere yet because nobody has done any work on it > yet. Most the work in that area has been focused on Metadata 2.0. > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig I’ll try to write up a more coherent thing sometime this week. I’m working on a PEP atm and I’m a little out of it from a root canal I had earlier today. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
