Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

I think we need to be very cautious. Anecdotally, I've seen folks hitting issues trying to adopt the new methods, and I don't see any upside to Django being an earlier adopter here. We were slow adopting PEP 517 and still had regressions reported: https://github.com/django/django/pull/12013 https

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 1:34 PM Ofek Lev wrote: > > My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the > wrong way. In the pull request you say [...] But the blog post you quote is > just saying to run "python -m build" instead of "python setup.py" > > This issue is that the `

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

> My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the wrong way. In the pull request you say [...] But the blog post you quote is just saying to run "python -m build" instead of "python setup.py" This issue is that the `python -m build`/PEP 517 way does not support the deprec

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 10:06 AM Ofek Lev wrote: > Hello! This is about using only `pyproject.toml` for packaging > https://github.com/django/django/pull/15874 My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the wrong way. In the pull request you say: > As a result, the exec

Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

Hello! This is about using only `pyproject.toml` for packaging https://github.com/django/django/pull/15874 The main question I think as Nick asked is whether it's okay to remove support for `python setup.py bdist_rpm`. As I mention in the OP: 1. Fedora does not use that