> On Oct 20, 2017, at 7:02 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's the one point where the "de facto standard" status of setuptools is
> relevant to the question of whether the entry_points.txt format is a PyPA
> interoperability standard: it is, because providing a functionally equivalent
> capability is required for publishers to be able to transparently switch from
> setuptools to something else without their end users noticing the difference.
Nope. Because this isn’t a packaging feature. It’s a runtime feature of
setuptools, and we do everyone a disservice by trying to move this into the
purview of distutils-sig just because setuptools included a feature once. Just
because setuptools included a feature does *NOT* make it a packaging related
feature.
Tell you what, I’ll drop everything today and write up a PEP that adds metadata
for console scripts to the packaging metadata where it belongs, so we can move
console_scripts entry point to a legacy footnote as far as packaging systems
go. Then we can discuss whether an arbitrary plugin system is actually a
packaging related spec (it’s not) on it’s own merits.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
