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

Reply via email to