On 3 June 2017 at 10:45, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: >> One thing that's not clear to me: a crucial use case for sdists is (1) >> download, (2) unpack, (3) patch the source, possibly adding new files, >> (4) build and install. (After all, the whole reason we insist on >> distributing sdists is that open source software should be modifiable >> by the recipient.) Does flit currently support this, given the >> reliance on VCS metadata? > > Flit does support that, so long as step 4 never needs to build an sdist. > Producing the sdist is the only operation for which flit needs the VCS. > > This is why I'm doggedly arguing that building and installing should be > possible without invoking any 'sdist' hook. ;-)
This is getting very off-topic, but what if I wanted to patch the source and then build a sdist to put into my local PyPI index? I presume the answer is that I either have to checkout the original sources from VCS or I have to build only wheels and maintain my source patches some other way. I can think of realistic reasons why neither of these 2 options are practical, but it is of course your prerogative to not support those cases. Also, I typically have a lot of stuff (working notes, utility scripts, etc) checked into VCS that I don't want to be in the sdist. I don't know if flit has a way to exclude such files - and if it does, why can't it use that method to also allow me to say "exclude everything *except* this list of files" if I want to? This is basically why I'm persistently unable to see why you won't even consider a fallback for building sdists when the VCS isn't present. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
