On 5 July 2017 at 15:49, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > I’ve had a niggling feeling about this hook from the beginning, but I > couldn’t quite put my finger on it until Nathaniel’s email made me realize > it. I feel like this hook is really *only* useful for flit, and for other > projects it is largely either going to be completely redundant or be an > attractive nuisance that ends up only causing issues. It’s a pretty narrow > use case where this hook is both able to do something AND doesn’t have the > exact same requirements as build_sdist. > > When I felt this was a more generic hook, I was OK with it, but I don’t > think it’s a good idea now that I’ve thought on it more and it feels > entirely ungeneric.
I don't think Thomas's plans for it are unusual, as it's normal for a build system to only be aware of the input files that are actually referenced by the build recipe, and also normal for published source archives to include additional files that *aren't* used by the build process for the binary artifacts. If you'd prefer some external validation for the concept, I see the "prepare_input_for_build_wheel" hook as fairly analagous to the "%prep" phase in the process of building an RPM: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section The current difference is that we expect backends to be able to cope with frontends *not* calling that implicitly when building from an unpacked sdist. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
