> On Mar 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17 Mar 2015 02:33, "Daniel Holth" <dho...@gmail.com > <mailto:dho...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Problem: Users would like to be able to import stuff in setup.py. This > > could be anything from a version fetcher to a replacement for > > distutils itself. However, if setup.py is the only place to specify > > these requirements there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, unless > > they have unusually good setuptools knowledge, especially if you want > > to replace the entire setup() implementation. > > > > Problem: Having easy_install do it is not what people want and misses > > some important use cases. > > > > Problem: Based on empirical evidence PEP 426 will never be done. Its > > current purpose is to shut down discussion of pragmatic solutions. > > Slight correction here: one of my current aims with PEP 426 is deliberately > discouraging the discussion of solutions that only work reliably if everyone > switches to a new build system first. That's a) never going to happen; and b) > one of the key mistakes the distutils2 folks made that significantly hindered > adoption of their work, and I don't want us to repeat it. > > My other key aim is to provide a public definition of what I think "good" > looks like when it comes to software distribution, so I can more easily > assess whether less radical proposals are still moving us closer to that goal. > > Making pip (and perhaps easy_install) setup.cfg aware, such that it assumes > the use of d2to1 (or a semantically equivalent tool) if setup.cfg is present > and hence is able to skip invoking setup.py in relevant cases, sounds like > just such a positive incremental step to me, as it increases the number of > situations where pip can avoid executing a Turing complete "configuration" > file, without impeding the eventual adoption of a more comprehensive solution. > > I don't think that needs a PEP - just an RFE against pip to make it d2to1 > aware for each use case where it's relevant, like installing setup.py > dependencies. (And perhaps a similar RFE against setuptools) > > Projects that choose to rely on that new feature will be setting a high > minimum installer version for their users, but some projects will be OK with > that (especially projects private to a single organisation after upgrading > pip on their production systems). > > Cheers, > Nick. > >
I don’t think that’s going to work, because if you only make pip aware of it then you break ``python setup.py sdist``, if you make setuptools aware of it then you don’t need pip to be aware of it because we’ll get it for free from setuptools being aware of it. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
