On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 01:29:48AM +0200, Cyril Roelandt wrote: > Andreas, could you please send us your Python modules that fail > because of setuptools ? I think these packages require setuptools > instead of distutils (which comes with Python), so we'll probably > have to package setuptools. Both are quite similar, so the > "python-build-system" can probably be used anyway. Otherwise, we'll > have to write a build system per tool > (distutils/distutils2/setuptools/bento).
Probably (once the python changes dust settles), it will be enough to simply add setuptools as an input to the packages. I would like to suggest a few modifications to the python build system resulting from discussions with Brandon Invergo at the GHM. If I understood correctly, then "setup.py check" only makes some basic checks on the package and can be safely dropped. This is corroborated by python setup.py --help-commands | grep check on pytz, for instance, which displays check perform some checks on the package However, "python setup.py --help-commands | grep test": test run unit tests after in-place build I think this it what we would like to do in the check phase. Then it is possible to also separate the build and install phases: build build everything needed to install I think we would like to add such a phase. Stylistically, they should probably be obtained by a call to one function returning a procedure calling setup.py with "build", "test" and "install", respectively, instead of copy-pasting three times the same code. There is another mild complication: The binary should be called "python3" instead of "python" under Python 3. What do you think? Andreas
