On 4 February 2017 at 13:42, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was pointed to pbr by lordmauve. http://docs.openstack.org/ > developer/pbr/ > > I like how pbr uses setup.cfg. Which I think other tools could use, by > putting their config inside a setup.cfg section. > Yep, there are a few tools to use declarative metadata for packaging (d2to1 is/was another). Flit was initially an experiment in whether it's possible to do Python packaging without using the distutils/setuptools machinery. As far as I know, all other tools build on top of distutils/setuptools, but I believe this is the source of many headaches. There are PEPs in the works (516, 517, 518) which define a new pyproject.toml file for packaging metadata. Once this is a bit more advanced, I plan to move flit's config inside that file. I hope that it will become a more modern, better specified alternative for setup.cfg. > Perhaps I agree with you about the magic. I guess it's more a thought > experiment about how simple we can make it at this point. Perhaps it could > be made usable by explaining to the user how to specify the missing data if > it's not there (eg. no git... then it tells people it tried to find it in > git, and for people to add author etc). > +1 to running the thought experiment. I guess how I might use these things is in a tool like 'flit init' - if git is present, it could use it to inform its default guess for author name & email, and then it writes these to a config file rather than using them directly. I have some thoughts on a tool which could add or modify features of a project like packaging or docs - as opposed to tools like cookiecutter, which expects to create an entire project. I wrote about this here: https://github.com/takluyver/flit/pull/97#issuecomment-270984130
