On 31 May 2017 at 18:03, Donald Stufft firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
No you’re correct, it currently just invokes
setup.py sdist bdist_wheel.
The hook is needed so that Travis can have a singular tool to invoke (likely
twine?) instead of needing to determine if it needs to invoke flit or
setuptools or mytotallyradbuildthing. The thing I’m trying to express (and
doing poorly it seems :( ) is that generating a sdist is an important thing
to have be possible, and it needs to be done in a way that it can be invoked
I don't think that's either unclear or in dispute. The question here is whether "produce a sdist" is in scope for this particular PEP.
The problem is that you're proposing using a "build a sdist" hook as the means for pip to do its "copy the source to an isolated build directory" step. Currently, doing that fails because tools like setuptools_scm work differently when run from a VCS checkout instead of a sdist. The long term plan for pip is something we've always described in terms of going via a sdist, but there's lots of details we haven't thrashed out yet. I don't think we're at a point where we can insist that in a post-PEP 517 world, we can switch straight to building via a sdist. However, I agree with you that we want PEP 517 to assist us with moving in that direction, and we definitely don't want to get into a situation like we're in now, where a PEP 517 compliant backend can leave us with no option better than "copy the whole source tree".
That's why I'm focusing at the moment on asking that PEP 517 require backends to specify the minimal set of files needed to do the build. With that we can create isolated build directories efficiently, and those files are going to be an essential component of building a sdist. They aren't sufficient to build a sdist by themselves, but specifying in a PEP how we do build a sdist is a perfectly reasonable next step, and can be done independently of PEP 517 (and indeed of pip
One other point that I think we're glossing over here. The only reason that I know of why current setuptools builds can't be isolated via a "build sdist" step, is because of helpers like setuptools_scm. I don't know much about such tools, and I don't know where they'd fit in a landscape of PEP 517 backends. Would setuptools_scm be a backend itself, or would it be a plugin for other backends (would backends want to have a plugin system for things like this)? The only concrete backends I know of are flit and something-that-will-do-what-setuptools-does-involving-compilers. Neither of those need a "tell me what files constitute a build" hook - they'd be fine with pip (or a library like packaging) implementing a "copy everything except VCS directories, tox directories, etc" heuristic. So the cases where we need a hook are those where an as-yet undefined "use VCS information to generate wheel metadata" backends (or backend plugin) is involved - and nobody knows what shape that will take, so we're guessing. My feeling is thatsuch a tool should be a backend that wraps another backend, and modifies the generate metadata hook. On that basis, it's perfectly capable of also modifying the "specify the build files" hook. But that's nothing more than a guess at this point.
 They can do a better job than that, certainly, which is why the hook is a good thing, but it's not a showstopper. The key point is that they need less than the obvious heuristic would give them, not more.