setup.py as implemented with distutils/setuptools has a bit of a Goldilocks problem: it's just right for a medium-complexity project but when your project is very simple it's too hard, and when you get to the point where you are trying to extend distutils by writing a 10,000 line extension, yikes. So it's fantastic to be able to just avoid distutils entirely if it isn't the right size for your project. This example, flit, does not invoke any code from distutils, setuptools or bdist_wheel to do its thing.
A source release could just be an archive of the repository. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, setup.py should die. Flit is one example, and you can understand > it not by copy/pasting, but by spending half an hour reading its > complete source code. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ian Cordasco > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The approach doesn't exclude the possibility of a source distribution, >>> it's only a few weeks old. I would suggest that if you have to choose >>> between having a setup.py, not having a setup.py, and not having the >>> package on pypi at all because the packager can't figure out setup.py, >>> prefer the second option. >> >> >> Is figuring out setup.py still a thing? Between cookiecutter laying out your >> project with a setup.py and the Packaging Guide, how many people still have >> trouble setting up a setup.py for a package? It almost seems like this is a >> solution wanting for a problem. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
