On 16 July 2018 at 10:45, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> 2. If [build-system] is missing, they can take one of the following >> two approaches: >> a) Act as if pyproject.toml is missing altogether >> b) Act as if [build-system] is present, with a requires value of >> ["setuptools", "wheel"] >> >> Whether tools act differently in cases 2a and 2b is tool-dependent >> (for pip, we would isolate in case 2b but not in case 2a) which is why >> the choice is left to individual tools. That makes the >> "Thomas/Nathaniel" debate into a tool implementation choice, and both >> of the options are allowable from the perspective of the PEP. >> >> Is everyone OK with this resolution? > > Broadly, yes. I think it might be appropriate for the PEP to make a > recommendation between 2a and 2b, even if it's not a hard requirement. In > practice, all other tools will probably want to do what pip does, so we don't > have packages that one tool can build but another can't. > > I'm not going to stamp my foot about this, though.
My inclination would be to recommend 2b. I said that before checking whether that was your proposal or Nathaniel's ;-), and it's based mostly on gut feel and "that's what pip does now and I don't see any reason to change it" though. Paul -- 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/S56Y6LECNYZW2OIUEJ5WLQZZP5B6B2SF/
