On 16 February 2016 at 22:40, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 February 2016 at 03:10, Robert Collins <[email protected]> > wrote: >> -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutron configuration file for pip and other >> +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file for pip and other > > Aw, I was looking forward to controlling my nuclear power plant with pip :-( > > Oh, and "acts as a" rather than just "acts as".
Fixed. >> +We discussed having an sdist verb. The main driver for this was to make sure >> +that build systems were able to produce sdists that pip can build - but >> this is >> +circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists >> +reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. Further, >> while >> +most everyone agrees that encouraging sdists to be uploaded to PyPI, there > > s/most/almost/ > > "to be uploaded to PyPI"... what? The phrase isn't complete. > Presumably "is a good thing". > >> +wasn't complete consensus on that. > > And I didn't think there was any dispute over this. There were people > who didn't want to disallow binary-only projects, but that's hardly > the same as not encouraging people who *are* making sources public to > put them in the same place as the binaries. Yes, badly phrased. I've removed that whole bit, and just kept it to the core: the PEP describes how to consume source trees, it doesn't change pip's relationship to source trees - sdist or vcs or other. > I thought the key point was that we'd agreed to Nick's suggestion that > we add some comments to the existing specifications to note that you > could bundle up a source tree with a pypa.json and get something > sufficient for new pips to install, so this provided a sufficiently > well-defined "source upload format" to work until discussions on a new > source format came to fruition? > > Specifically, my expectation is that this PEP require that the > specification changes proposed by Nick be implemented. Sure, it's an > informational change to a document, but it's important that this PEP > acknowledge that the action was part of the consensus. So, I don't know what note you're looking for. The PEP /already/ documents that pip will be able to consume this, and the context is from sdists / source trees. Yes, we're going to document in the other relevant specs that we expect folk to upload sdists - thats also my understanding. My note in the PEP was specifically about the inclusion or not of an sdist verb in the interface. -Rob +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as a neutral configuration file for pip and other tools that want to build source trees to consult for configuration. The absence of a ``pypa.json`` file in a Python source tree implies a setuptools or setuptools compatible build system. @@ -414,10 +414,13 @@ the difference older pip versions require. We discussed having an sdist verb. The main driver for this was to make sure that build systems were able to produce sdists that pip can build - but this is -circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists -reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. Further, while -most everyone agrees that encouraging sdists to be uploaded to PyPI, there -wasn't complete consensus on that. +circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists or VCS +source trees reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. +Being able to create new sdists from existing source trees isn't a thing pip +does today, and while there is a PR to do that as part of building from +source, it is contentious and lacks consensus. Rather than impose a +requirement on all build systems, we are treating it as a YAGNI, and will add +such a verb in a future version of the interface if required. References ========== Press ENTER or type command to continue robertc@lifeless-z140:~/work/interoperability-peps$ robertc@lifeless-z140:~/work/interoperability-peps$ git diff diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst b/build-system-abstraction.rst index 56464f1..a69c150 100644 --- a/build-system-abstraction.rst +++ b/build-system-abstraction.rst @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ modelled on pip's existing use of the setuptools setup.py interface. pypa.json --------- -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file for pip and other +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as a neutral configuration file for pip and other tools that want to build source trees to consult for configuration. The absence of a ``pypa.json`` file in a Python source tree implies a setuptools or setuptools compatible build system. @@ -414,10 +414,13 @@ the difference older pip versions require. We discussed having an sdist verb. The main driver for this was to make sure that build systems were able to produce sdists that pip can build - but this is -circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists -reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. Further, while -most everyone agrees that encouraging sdists to be uploaded to PyPI, there -wasn't complete consensus on that. +circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists or VCS +source trees reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. +Being able to create new sdists from existing source trees isn't a thing pip +does today, and while there is a PR to do that as part of building from +source, it is contentious and lacks consensus. Rather than impose a +requirement on all build systems, we are treating it as a YAGNI, and will add +such a verb in a future version of the interface if required. References ========== -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
