On 4 May 2016 at 22:33, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > ..> I also believe that we can't provide a replacement for setup.py without either > purposely declaring we no longer support something that people used from it or > providing a way to support that in the new, setup.py-less format.
The thunk I wrote being insufficient? > One thing I remarked to Nataniel yesterday was that it might be a good idea to > drop the build system aspect of these for right now (since afaict all the > invested parties are currently overloaded and/or have a lack of time) and > focus > soley on the part of the proposal that enables us to get a real setup_requires ... the only reason I got involved in build system discussions was pushback 18months or so back when I implemented a proof of concept for pip that just used setup.cfg. I'd be very happy to ignore all the build system stuff and just do bootstrap requirements in setup.cfg. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hpe.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
