On 31 March 2015 at 08:04, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 March 2015 at 16:56, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: >> Honestly, I don’t think that setup.py as a development interface is that >> bad. It gets really bad when we start sticking it inside of a sdist and >> using that as part of the installation metadata. >> >> It’s not unusual for me to want (or need) to do something a little bit >> different in a project, or something that the original authors didn’t >> quite intend to do. This is perfectly valid and fine inside of a file >> that only ever gets executed on a developer machine. However it *needs* >> to be “compiled” down to a static file when creating a sdist. > > Hmm, I don't think I'd ever really understood the distinction between > "development setup" and "sdist" that clearly. I take your point, it's > the sdist level that we want to avoid executable metadata formats in.
Thinking some more about that, my confusion is probably in part because pip doesn't distinguish between a "development directory" and a sdist at the moment. For both, it runs "setup.py bdist_wheel/install". So I guess work on a new sdist format would have to include pip learning to distinguish between a sdist and a working directory, and installing (or building wheels from) the two things differently. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
