Paul Ganssle <p.gans...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> So what is the plan to continue to support building cpython itself which > depends on Distutils? Currently the build bootstraps itself without the aid > of an existing Python interpreter instance. There would also be major impacts > across the whole cpython development process. My understanding was that the plan was to move the standard library distutils into a private module somewhere in the standard library and presumably to slim it down to only the bare minimum required for what is necessary to build Python itself. We're really only concerned with the use of distutils to build packages. > For example, there are many open Distutils issues in the bugs.python.org bug > tracker. We need a plan on how those are to be handled (and that should take > into account the expected transition from b.p.o to GitHub issues). People > will continue to submit issues agains Distutils there so triage team members > and core developers need to know how to handle such issues. What if an issue > applies also or only to a previous release branch (i.e. where Distutils is > still in the repo)? As far as I can tell we've already been telling people that issues in distutils should be fixed in setuptools instead for a few years. I don't think anything needs to be done about the currently open distutils tickets before we *deprecate* distutils, though during the deprecation period we'll probably want to decide whether we want to migrate them, do a mass closure or just leave them to be ad hoc closed as people stumble upon them later. Mass closure may be complicated because tickets affecting CPython itself will still need to be addressed. > What about Distutils documentation in the Python docset? THose are just some > off the top of my head. The distutils documentation is already basically just a warning page that says "stop using distutils": https://docs.python.org/3/library/distutils.html#module-distutils Before these reference materials are removed from the docs we'll need to make sure that all the stuff that's still supported is documented on the setuptools side. > I don't think any of these issues are necessarily blockers but they need to > be planned for and reviewed. I think a PEP is definitely in order for a > change of this magnitude. A PEP may be a good idea, but I do think the change doesn't have a particularly large magnitude. Anyone using setuptools or pip has already been getting setuptools' monkey-patched version of distutils for ages now, and soon they will be getting setuptools' vendored version. The documentation already indicates that distutils is at least soft-deprecated in favor of setuptools and we've already been directing issues and PRs to setuptools instead of distutils. This last piece is really formalizing something we've been incrementally working towards for a long time now. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it carefully and with a lot of notice, but it's also not a sudden and massive shift. ---------- nosy: +p-ganssle _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41282> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
