On 11 May 2016 at 10:39, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > Donald, Nathaniel, and I have finished our proposed PEP for specifying a > projects' build dependencies. The PEP is being kept at > https://github.com/brettcannon/build-deps-pep, so if you find spelling > mistakes and grammatical errors please feel free to send a PR to fix them. > > The only open issue in the PEP at the moment is the bikeshedding topic of > what to name the sub-section containing the requirements: `[package.build]` > or `[package.build-system]` (we couldn't reach consensus among the three of > us on this). Otherwise the three of us are rather happy with the way the PEP > has turned out and look forward to this being the first step towards > allowing projects to customize their build process better!
I prefer [package.build-system]. My rationale for that is that the build system may have *its own* configuration mechanism, separate from this file, and I don't want people to get confused between a project's "build settings" and its "build system identification". Take the default case: for a distutils/setuptools based project, the actual build settings are the arguments to setup() in setup.py, *not* these new settings in pyproject.toml. By contrast, the settings in [package.build-system] are the ones that tell pip and other installers what is needed to make "setup.py bdist_wheel" work (and, in the future, will tell them when to invoke something other than "setup.py bdist_wheel" to do the binary build) > For the vast majority of Python projects that rely upon setuptools, > the ``pyproject.toml`` file will be:: > > [package.build-system] > requires = ['setuptools', 'wheel'] # PEP 508 specifications. It would be worthwhile showing an example of using the new mechanism to bootstrap a project that relies on numpy.distutils. > Open Issues > =========== > > Name of the build-related sub-table > ----------------------------------- > > The authors of this PEP couldn't decide between the names > ``[package.build]`` and ``[package.build-system]``, and so it is an > open issue over which one to go with. "package.build-system", for the reason given above (i.e. "build" conflicts with the project's actual build settings). > Rejected Ideas > ============== > > Other semantic version key names > -------------------------------- > > Names other than ``semantics-version`` were considered to represent > the version of semantics that the configuration file was written for. > Both ``configuration-version`` and ``metadata-version`` were both > considered, but were rejected due to how people may confuse the > key as representing a version of the files contents instead of the > version of semantics that the file is interpreted under. Would you be open to using schema-version rather than semantic-version, and then formally defining the format via jsonschema and/or JSL [1]? Cheers, Nick. [1] The latter is like an ORM for jsonschema: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsl -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
