Having setuptools process the setup requirements before parsing install
requirements would be a good step forward. Had that been done before, we
could've just added a setup requirement for a newer setuptools to enable
PEP 508 conditional requirements.
03.05.2016, 21:04, Daniel Holth kirjoitti:
We did separate build from install. Now we just want to be able to
build without [having to emulate] distutils; just having some
dependencies installed before setup.py runs would also be a great boon.
I'm reading part of this conversation as "a simple bdist_wheel bug is
a reason to do a lot of work standardizing file formats" which I find
unfortunate.
If he is still up for it let Robert implement his own PEP as the way
forward for build system abstraction. The extra PEPs are just delaying
action.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:11 PM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com
<mailto:p.f.mo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 17:47, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io
<mailto:don...@stufft.io>> wrote:
> It will likely get decided as part of the build system PEP,
whenever that
> gets picked up again.
Yes, but on 15th March
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028457.html)
Robert posted
> Just to set expectations: this whole process seems stalled to
me; I'm
> going to context switch and focus on things that can move forward.
> Someone please ping me when its relevant to put effort in again :).
And I think that's right. The whole build system PEP issue appears
stalled from a lack of someone willing (or with the time) to make a
call on the approach we take.
As far as I'm aware, the decision remains with Nick. With the possible
exception of Donald's proposal (which AFAIK never got formally
published as a PEP) everything that can be said on the other proposals
has been said, and the remaining differences are ones of choice of
approach rather than anything affecting capabilities. (Robert's
message at
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028437.html
summarised the state of the 3 proposals at the time).
I think this is something that should be resolved - we don't appear to
be gaining anything by waiting, and until we have a decision on the
approach that's being taken, we aren't going to get anyone writing
code for their preferred option.
Nick - do you have the time to pick this up? Or does it need someone
to step up as BDFL-delegate? Robert, Nathaniel, do you have time to
spend on a final round of discussion on this, on the assumption that
the goal will be a final decision at the end of it? Donald, do you
have the time and interest to complete and publish your proposal?
Paul
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
<mailto:Distutils-SIG@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
