On 28 June 2018 at 11:37, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> So my inclination is to plan on ending up with build-system.requires
> defaulting to ["setuptools", "wheel"], and build-system.backend
> defaulting to "setuptools". Hopefully we'll eventually get to a place
> where ~no-one uses these defaults, but carrying around the code to
> handle the defaults isn't really a burden.
While I was going to post to say I liked this approach, after a bit of
reflection, I realised I prefer Thomas Kluyver's suggestion: instead
of taking "pyproject.toml" as indicating a build-isolation compatible
sdist file, instead make "pyproject.toml with a build-system table"
the marker for that case.
If you don't have a build-system table at all, then you'll continue to
get the legacy sdist handling, allowing the addition of other tool
config without impacting the way your sdist gets built.
If you do add a build-system table, then you have to populates the
"requires" field properly, even if you're using setuptools as your
build backend.
That way, the "build-system.backend defaults to setuptools" behaviour
is only there to support pyproject.toml files that have already opted
in to build isolation by writing:
[build-system]
requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"]
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
--
Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/XR3IUQI27KZVLRCEYEV4RU7X7T7UL5B2/
