Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

Nathaniel, I'm not sure what the software is supposed to do with fine grained dynamic metadata that would make very much sense to the end user. I think you could probably get away with a single flag Dynamic: true / false. Iff true, pip runs the dist-info command after installing bootstrap

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On October 28, 2015 at 10:55:54 AM, David Cournapeau (courn...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > > > On 27 Oct 2015 13:30, "Daniel Holth" wrote: > > > > > > Mr. grumpy pants, > > > > > > Now you're trolling us by describing flit. > > > > I'd managed

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

Well it sounds like we're ready to actually fix that, by defining a reasonable universal Python sdist format. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > On October 28, 2015 at 10:55:54 AM, David Cournapeau (courn...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 27 Oct 2015 13:30, "Daniel Holth" wrote: > > > > Mr. grumpy pants, > > > > Now you're trolling us by describing flit. > > I'd managed to miss Flit's creation, so I simply wasn't aware of it. > >

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 02:28, Daniel Holth wrote: > It looks like you would normally be able to say just 'flit' in the > bootstrap-requires or provided-by, unless the requirements were for build > code bundled inside the sdist. Right - you'd say flit in bootstrap-requires, and

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 18:03, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: ... >> I've run it past Donald and he has a number of concerns - I think >> we'll need to discuss them here, and possibly in another hangout,

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

Robert Collins writes: > On 28 October 2015 at 18:02, Ben Finney wrote: > > Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can > > participate without needing to sign up with any particular service > > provider. > > One has to

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation (was: build system abstraction PEP)

On 28 October 2015 at 18:02, Ben Finney wrote: > Marcus Smith writes: > >> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as >> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : ) > > Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On Oct 27, 2015 10:58 PM, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins >> wrote: >> > Since Nathaniel seems busy, I've taken the

Re: [Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

On 28 October 2015 at 17:50, Marcus Smith wrote: >> >> Current draft text in rendered form at: >> https://gist.github.com/rbtcollins/666c12aec869237f7cf7 >> > > Thanks for working on this. > Overall I like the idea, but have some comments/questions > > > 1) *Please*, *please*,

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28.10.2015 06:02, Ben Finney wrote: > Marcus Smith writes: > >> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as >> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : ) > > Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can participate > without needing to

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation (was: build system abstraction PEP)

my intention certainly wasn't to try to exclude anybody. for me, it's the practical matter of the PR UI being more effective than a mailing list thread (in this case referring to a gist), and that we can track proposals easier and link to them from issues (in that same repo) and other PyPA docs.

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation (was: build system abstraction PEP)

On 28 Oct 2015 09:32, "Marcus Smith" wrote: > > my intention certainly wasn't to try to exclude anybody. for me, it's the practical matter of the PR UI being more effective than a mailing list thread (in this case referring to a gist), and that we can track proposals easier and

Re: [Distutils] New PyPUG Tutorials

On 26 Oct 2015 01:10, "Paul Moore" wrote: > > On 24 October 2015 at 20:25, Marcus Smith wrote: > > As someone who has slowly chipped away on the PyPUG for the last 2 years, > > I'm excited about the prospect of being able to make a big jump in quality > >

Re: [Distutils] Environment markers: ready for prime time?

bdist_wheel predates marker support in setuptools and didn't support pulling markers from setup.py until 0.24.0, as noted in the wheel release notes. Older versions of bdist_wheel could read conditional requirements from a section in setup.cfg but could not translate markers from setuptools'

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On October 28, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote: > > [1] If I'm supposed to be getting notifications for comments on the PR > (as a member of the PyPA group, shouldn't I be?) then it's not > happening... I know I can subscribe to the PR, but I'm not clear why I > should

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:31 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 28.10.2015 06:02, Ben Finney wrote: >> Marcus Smith writes: >> >>> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as >>> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : ) >> >> Please keep the

[Distutils] Environment markers: ready for prime time?

Hi! pip 7 enables wheel caching by default, which is good. Wheel caching means you can't compute dynamic dependencies any more -- i.e. things like setup( ... install_requires=[...] + (['enum34'] if sys.version_info[0] < 3 else []), ...) will cause problems. As far as I

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28.10.2015 19:33, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:31 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> On 28.10.2015 06:02, Ben Finney wrote: >>> Marcus Smith writes: >>> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as PRs to

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28 October 2015 at 18:27, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:31 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> >> I agree with Ben. Discussions on PEPs need to happen on mailing lists, >> not hidden away on some issue tracker or PR ticket. > > > I

Re: [Distutils] Environment markers: ready for prime time?

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote: > - does the pip version matter at all? I think not; please correct me if > I'm wrong. > ​From what I see, pip only supports env markers in sdists since 6.0 ( https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/2153) so I guess one can

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:31 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > I agree with Ben. Discussions on PEPs need to happen on mailing lists, > not hidden away on some issue tracker or PR ticket. > ​I think some balance is needed here. Every so often discussions on the mailing list get so

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28 October 2015 at 18:33, Ian Cordasco wrote: > Also nothing precludes mailing list discussions, so without details > about your objections, I don't see why this should be held up. One immediate question - not at all FUD, nor intended as provocative, it's a genuine

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:41 AM Daniel Holth wrote: > Well it sounds like we're ready to actually fix that, by defining a > reasonable universal Python sdist format. > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On October 28, 2015 at

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28 October 2015 at 18:44, Donald Stufft wrote: > On October 28, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> [1] If I'm supposed to be getting notifications for comments on the PR >> (as a member of the PyPA group, shouldn't I be?) then it's not >>

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On October 28, 2015 at 3:05:57 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote: > I feel like you are suggesting that the person who spent their time > developing some software and then gave it to away, and then chose a build > system that was convenient for them, is causing problems. We can prevent >

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2015 00:31, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give

[Distutils] flit adapter for the current sdist format

OK, so I wanted to see what it would take to create current-format sdists, defined as anything that has a setup.py that pip can install by running said setup.py. The following script takes a flit package (in the current directory and builds a pip-installable sdist. Tested against

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

Nick Coghlan writes: > That said, for Fedora RPMs, we don't need sdist per se - we only need > ready access to the "original sources". There's a temporal element to that, too. While “ready access” to the source might be clear enough at the moment of the wheel's release, it

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 28 October 2015 at 18:44, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On October 28, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) > wrote: > >> > >> [1] If I'm supposed to be getting notifications for comments

Re: [Distutils] Please don't impose additional barriers to participation

On 28 October 2015 at 20:15, Ralf Gommers wrote: > It's the "Watch" button on the right top of > https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps Doh. Thanks. Paul ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org

Re: [Distutils] Removing the aspirational aspects of PEP 426

On 28 Oct 2015 11:39, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > > > [...] > > > From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to do is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build system

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [TBD: should builds be performed in a fully isolated environment, or > should they get access to packages that are already installed in the > target install environment? The former simplifies a number of things, > but

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On 28 Oct 2015 20:10, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > No, I’m suggesting that the PyPA needs to be conservative with it’s recommendations and that we need to consider the broader ecosystem impact. Individual projects or people may have different criteria they use to determine what is

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on > conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about having a fissure > in 1D along the Python 2/3 line, and I'm constantly worried that the >

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On 28 Oct 2015 10:08, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: >Though it may well make sense for > the PyPA packaging guide to add a set of best-practice guidelines for > build system implementors. What would be really nice is if the new specification came with a behavioural test suite (e.g.

Re: [Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

On 27 Oct 2015 13:30, "Daniel Holth" wrote: > > Mr. grumpy pants, > > Now you're trolling us by describing flit. I'd managed to miss Flit's creation, so I simply wasn't aware of it. Now that I've had a chance to remedy that oversight, yes, flit sounds exactly like what I

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 26 October 2015 at 06:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > Here's a second round of text towards making a build-system > > independent interface between pip and source trees/sdists. My idea > > this time is

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: >> >> The drawback of .zip is file size since it compresses each file >> individually rather than giving the compression algorithm a larger

[Distutils] Removing the aspirational aspects of PEP 426

Caught up on distutils-sig this morning - I don't have any additional comments on Robert's and Nathaniel's draft PEPs except to say "I really like the look of where they're going, and look forward to reading the next iterations on them that take into account the feedback already received" :) The

Re: [Distutils] Removing the aspirational aspects of PEP 426

On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > [...] > From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to do is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build system improvements, and defer everything else (e.g. JSON-LD, SPDX, richer

Re: [Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > When this sdist is built, the resulting wheel MUST have metadata > which is identical to the metadata present in this file, except that > any fields with value ``__SDIST_DYNAMIC__`` in the sdist may have > arbitrary values

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On 29 Oct 2015 00:31, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about having a

Re: [Distutils] Environment markers: ready for prime time?

On 29 October 2015 at 06:08, Marius Gedminas wrote: > Hi! > > pip 7 enables wheel caching by default, which is good. > > Wheel caching means you can't compute dynamic dependencies any more -- > i.e. things like > > setup( > ... > install_requires=[...] + (['enum34'] if

Re: [Distutils] Removing the aspirational aspects of PEP 426

On 28 October 2015 at 23:39, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: >> > [...] >> From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to do >> is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on >> conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about