Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

> The setuptools and pip master branches are for things which *are* expected to go into the next version, not for experimental changes I agree with that statement (the PRs as they currently are need work because they have become stale) in the sense that code in the master branch should work at all

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

On 19 August 2017 at 21:30, xoviat wrote: > Also, I disagree with this point. I think it's still possible (and in fact > preferable) to have setuptools and pip 'test this out' with appropriate > fallbacks before opening this up to the wider community. Most people > wouldn't even notice because the

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Also, I disagree with this point. I think it's still possible (and in fact preferable) to have setuptools and pip 'test this out' with appropriate fallbacks before opening this up to the wider community. Most people wouldn't even notice because they wouldn't be using HEAD. 2017-08-18 15:28 GMT-04:

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Excuse me, but what I meant to say is that sys.path would be adjusted after the subprocess was loaded (in my implementation I adjust sys.path and os.environ['PYTHONPATH']). 2017-08-19 16:22 GMT-04:00 xoviat : > Yes, it probably is. But then again, I assumed that it was obvious that > PYTHONPATH w

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Yes, it probably is. But then again, I assumed that it was obvious that PYTHONPATH would not be modified before invoking the hook (at least obvious to me) until the 'PEP 517 Status' discussion implied that it was not so obvious and needed to be specified in the PEP. 2017-08-19 16:10 GMT-04:00 Dani

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

It's probably a tiny wrapper running the hook in its own subprocess. Probably few modules loaded. On Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 14:31 xoviat wrote: > Ah the joy of Python 2.7; it seems I've forgotten its perils: unloading is > not possible which means that we would need to come up with another > solutio

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Ah the joy of Python 2.7; it seems I've forgotten its perils: unloading is not possible which means that we would need to come up with another solution to this problem. Perhaps setting aside a namespace for the build frontend in the subprocess? 2017-08-19 14:23 GMT-04:00 xoviat : > I assume that

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I assume that the outstanding issues mentioned are related to sys.path in the build tree. My view on that is the following: the build frontend should be responsible using any mechanism that it chooses for invoking the build backend, which must be imported with '' at the front of sys.path. This obvi

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

On 19 August 2017 at 05:28, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > We've probably all wished that the discussion could be brought to a swift > conclusion. But there are real questions to work out, and people have many > other things to pay attention to. I'm frustrated by how long it's taking as > well, but there

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I wouldn't expect established tools like pip & setuptools to accept pull requests implementing a PEP which is still under discussion and subject to change. They will naturally want a stable, accepted spec before they consider merging code for it. We've probably all wished that the discussion could

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

At this point, I can only offer implementations as I have been attempting to do (some of which are outdated because the PEP has changed), but I cannot make anyone pay attention to or accept my pull requests and it seems I cannot accelerate the discussion here. 2017-08-18 14:08 GMT-05:00 xoviat :

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I have attempted to implement prototype machinery here and here , but it's been widely ignored IHMO because as Thomas said, the spec keeps changing. 2017-08-18 12:37 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver : > There's prototyp

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

There's prototype machinery to call the hooks here, though it's outdated because the spec keeps changing:https://github.com/takluyver/pep517 There's a prototype backend in a branch of flit, but it's even more outdated:https://github.com/takluyver/flit/tree/toml-config On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 06

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Apart from the issues, can we get some prototype implementations? On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 13:24 xoviat wrote: > Thomas: > > > What are the specific issues that need to be worked out? > > > Regards, > > > xoviat > > 2017-08-18 3:09 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver : > >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 07:09 AM,

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I'll let Nathaniel relay them. On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 06:23 PM, xoviat wrote: > Thomas: > > > What are the specific issues that need to be worked out? > > > Regards, > > > xoviat > > 2017-08-18 3:09 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver : >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 07:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

Thomas: What are the specific issues that need to be worked out? Regards, xoviat 2017-08-18 3:09 GMT-05:00 Thomas Kluyver : > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 07:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > The other aspect I'm not clear on is whether or not both PEP authors > > are otherwise happy for the curre

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 07:09 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > The other aspect I'm not clear on is whether or not both PEP authors > are otherwise happy for the current version to be *considered* for > acceptance Nathaniel has mentioned to me a list of issues he sees that we still need to work through.

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

On 18 August 2017 at 14:16, xoviat wrote: > I'm still not convinced, but this PEP has been WIP for too long. I think it > should be marked Accepted. As previously noted, I'm mostly ready to mark it as Accepted (we're just missing some specific wording around the use of NotImplementedError to sign

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I'm still not convinced, but this PEP has been WIP for too long. I think it should be marked Accepted. On Aug 17, 2017 9:51 PM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > On 18 August 2017 at 02:05, 12345 67890 wrote: > > After reviewing the PEP, I personally feel that it relies too much on the > > backend Doing

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

On 18 August 2017 at 02:05, 12345 67890 wrote: > After reviewing the PEP, I personally feel that it relies too much on the > backend Doing The Right Thing. As it currently stands, it is my > understanding that the build backend is called in the source directory and > is then responsible for handli

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

I agree that the way you want to do packaging is fundamentally incompatible with build systems that do not resemble distutils. Perhaps since this is distutils sig some here are too used to distutils as the only model of how packaging might work. Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do

[Distutils] PEP 517: Build frontend responsibilities

All: After reviewing the PEP, I personally feel that it relies too much on the backend Doing The Right Thing. As it currently stands, it is my understanding that the build backend is called in the source directory and is then responsible for handling the entire process to build a compliant whee