On Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 6 July 2017 at 11:26, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I hope you'll reconsider that deprecation - flit is one of only two (AFAIK) > > active attempts at making a saner build tool (enscons being the other one), > > and does have real value I think. > > Agreed. In spite of the fact that I've been part of the pushback > you've had over flit's approach, I nevertheless feel that flit is a > major step forward in providing a user-friendly project packaging tool > for Python.
Thanks both, and Matthias. I'd reconsider it if I could see a reliable way to support pip installing from a local directory. But at present, it seems unavoidable that pip will require building an sdist, and I can't see a sufficiently reliable way for flit to to do that. I compromised on requiring a VCS to build an sdist for release, but I consider that an unacceptable restriction for installing from source. Flit could cheat and build a partial sdist for pip to unpack and build a wheel from, but that becomes a problem if other tools use the hook to generate an sdist for release. So I see no good options for flit to be a good backend, and trying to argue for the spec to be something I can work with is exhausting. Thomas _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
