> On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
An archive of the repository is not the same thing as a source release. Honestly, most of my setup.py’s look basically the same as a flit ini file, just inside of python instead of ini. For example, I’m not sure how something like https://github.com/pypa/packaging/blob/master/setup.py or https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/blob/master/setup.py or https://github.com/pypa/twine/blob/master/setup.py or https://github.com/pypa/readme/blob/master/setup.py would be improved by moving it to a ini file instead of a python file. The current toolchain absolutely has some problems, but I’m not convinced that shuffling around the same data into different locations is the answer to those problems. --- 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 - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
