> When the upstream installation process is instead broken up into
> "build a binary artifact" and "install a binary artifact", that brings
> a few benefits:
Great -- thanks for the detailed explanation. Sounds like a good plan, then.
-CHB
___
Distutils
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> No need to think; the decision is made and it's TOML. I know Chris doesn't
> mean to stir up trouble, but at this point if someone wants to propose
> something other than TOML they are going to have to write their own PEP.
Not asking for a
Chris Barker writes:
> Oh, and why not "JSON with comments and trailing commas" - it would be well
> defined and easy to implement.
And mostly done, even: https://bitbucket.org/intellimath/pyaxon
ciao, lele.
--
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele G
Biggest changes since the initial draft:
1. No more semantics-version
2. No more [package] table
3. Settled on [build-system] as the table name
4. The "requires" key is required if [build-system] is defined
5. Changed the title and clarified that this is all about the minimum
req
On 14 May 2016 at 06:31, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> But, the plan *is* to make wheels the standard way to build packages --
>> that will be in the next pep :-). I'm not sure I'd call it "lock down",
>> because there's nothing that will stop
