<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2F5496;
font-weight:normal;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2F5496;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I'd also note that I've never myself encountered the "horrible<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>easy_install behavior" you mention, and your description doesn't<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>remind me of any specific issues that have been raised.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>See setuptools issue #917. Setuptools does not use published wheels to fulfill setup_requires, which creates a host of issues when the installed distribution is different to what would have been installed by pip.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>*All* of the pip developers have very<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>limited time, and complaining that you are being ignored is frankly<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>not the best way of getting attention.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I understand that but when I am attempting to use my own time to resolve a serious issue and then no one responded to it, I became suspicious that people were waiting on PEP 517 to resolve the issue.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Also, it's important to remember that *no* change will improve things<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>for users until it's in a released version of pip. The next planned<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>version is pip 10, and I for one hope that PEP 517 will be in that<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>version - so why rush in a fix that will only need modifying once PEP<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>517 is implemented?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Precisely because I am highly concerned that PEP 517 does not appear on track to be resolved on distutils-sig before the next release of pip 10. I am more than happy to provide a complete implementation but I cannot proceed until the PEP is accepted.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>xoviat</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:p.f.moore@gmail.com">Paul Moore</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, August 6, 2017 1:58 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:xoviat@gmail.com">12345 67890</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:distutils-sig@python.org">distutils-sig@python.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 Status</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 6 August 2017 at 00:18, 12345 67890 <xoviat@gmail.com> wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> I have been attempting to resolve the horrible easy_install behavior where</p><p class=MsoNormal>> compiled wheels published on pypi are not used to fulfill setup</p><p class=MsoNormal>> requirements. To address this issue, I have submitted pull requests to both</p><p class=MsoNormal>> setuptools and pip that would allow a proprietary communication method that</p><p class=MsoNormal>> can later be easily adjusted to be fully PEP 517 compliant, saving work</p><p class=MsoNormal>> while resolving a specific issue.</p><p class=MsoNormal>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> However, everyone appears to be ignoring these pull requests, in my</p><p class=MsoNormal>> estimation, because PEP 517 is not fully completed. That’s fine, but partial</p><p class=MsoNormal>> PEP 517 compliance in one area is better than nothing at all, which is</p><p class=MsoNormal>> currently the default scenario.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That's not correct (at least in my case). I'm "ignoring", as you put</p><p class=MsoNormal>it, your PR, because I work on pip in my spare time, and I have</p><p class=MsoNormal>extremely limited time to spend on pip, and I'd rather invest my time</p><p class=MsoNormal>in other areas. That's my choice, and you complaining about my</p><p class=MsoNormal>priorities won't affect it. *All* of the pip developers have very</p><p class=MsoNormal>limited time, and complaining that you are being ignored is frankly</p><p class=MsoNormal>not the best way of getting attention.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To be explicit, I'm currently spending my time on:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1. Mailing list discussions (because I can work on these when not at a</p><p class=MsoNormal>PC with a development setup).</p><p class=MsoNormal>2. Triage of issues (explaining misunderstandings, redirecting issues</p><p class=MsoNormal>that are actually for other projects, confirming issues are real and</p><p class=MsoNormal>requesting PRs, etc)</p><p class=MsoNormal>3. Reviews of PRs where other core pip maintainers or key developers need them.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That pretty much uses up all of the time I have available for pip at the moment.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I'd also note that I've never myself encountered the "horrible</p><p class=MsoNormal>easy_install behavior" you mention, and your description doesn't</p><p class=MsoNormal>remind me of any specific issues that have been raised. That's not to</p><p class=MsoNormal>say that it's not a significant issue - maybe it is - but if you want</p><p class=MsoNormal>to persuade me that it's urgent enough to merit me spending time on</p><p class=MsoNormal>it, I'd appreciate links to your PR, and to one or more issues</p><p class=MsoNormal>reported against pip explaining how the problem is affecting users.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Also, it's important to remember that *no* change will improve things</p><p class=MsoNormal>for users until it's in a released version of pip. The next planned</p><p class=MsoNormal>version is pip 10, and I for one hope that PEP 517 will be in that</p><p class=MsoNormal>version - so why rush in a fix that will only need modifying once PEP</p><p class=MsoNormal>517 is implemented? Even if your proposed change is highly urgent, it</p><p class=MsoNormal>would still be sensible to resolve the question of whether PEP 517</p><p class=MsoNormal>will be implemented in pip 10 before rushing to implement a partial</p><p class=MsoNormal>solution, that by your own admission uses a "proprietary" protocol</p><p class=MsoNormal>rather than following PEP 517.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry if this isn't the response you were hoping for - but hopefully</p><p class=MsoNormal>it explains the situation a little for you.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>