Agree. On Wed, May 4, 2016, 09:28 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 23:00, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 It would be great to start with a real setup_requires and probably > would > > not interfere with later build system abstractions at all. > > If we're going to go down that path, perhaps it might make sense to > just define a standard [setup_requires] section in setup.cfg? > > Quite a few projects already have one of those thanks to distutiils2, > d2to1 and pbr, which means the pragmatic approach here might be to ask > what needs to change so the qualifier can be removed from this current > observation in the PBR docs: "The setup.cfg file is an ini-like file > that can mostly replace the setup.py file." > > The build system abstraction config could then also just be another > setup.cfg section. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
