On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 October 2015 at 23:12, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: >> The core problem is that the status quo is merely clumsy and >> inelegant, rather than completely unusable. For all their flaws, both >> hobbyists and professional developers *can* use the current tools to >> distribute software (and they're still easier to deal with than >> writing directly for the native installer toolsets on each target >> platform), while in any organisation that uses Python heavily, setup >> scripts for new projects are likely to be either generated from >> templates or copied from those for old projects, rather than needing >> to be written from scratch each time. > > And now that I've got my "Mr grumpy pants" reaction to the earlier > parts of the thread out of my system (sorry about that), I'd like to > revisit Chris's idea of having a *simple* replacement for setuptools > as a build system. > > In particular, what if there was a build system aimed specifically at > beginners that, at least initially, *only* supported the creation of > sdist's and wheels for pure Python source publication (no "install" or > "upload" commands), without support for binary extensions, and > defaulted to publishing everything in the current directory and below, > while relying on twine to actually do the uploads to PyPI?
This isn't terribly far from what flit already is. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
