<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Thomas Kluyver <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas@kluyver.me.uk" target="_blank">thomas@kluyver.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank-you all for the discussion and the attempts to accommodate flit,<br>
but I'll bow out now. It's become clear that the way flit approaches<br>
packaging is fundamentally incompatible with the priorities other people<br>
have for the ecosystem. Namely, I see sdists as archival artifacts to be<br>
made approximately once per release, but the general trend is to make<br>
them a key part of the build pipeline.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For the record: your view makes perfect sense to me, and is conceptually cleaner than the one that PEP 517 in its current form prefers. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Making a guerilla tool with no concern for integration was fun. It<br>
became frustrating as people began to use it and expected it to play<br>
well with other tools, so I jumped on PEP 517 as a way to bring it into<br>
the fold. That didn't work out, and a tool that doesn't play well with<br>
pip can only be an attractive nuisance at best, even if it technically<br>
complies with the relevant specs.<br>
<br>
Flit is therefore deprecated, and I recommend anyone using it migrate<br>
back to setup.py packaging.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I hope you'll reconsider that deprecation - flit is one of only two (AFAIK) active attempts at making a saner build tool (enscons being the other one), and does have real value I think.<br><br></div><div>Either way, thanks for all the effort you put in!<br><br></div><div>Ralf<br><br></div></div></div></div>