On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Thomas Kluyver <thomas@kluyver.me.uk> wrote:
Thank-you all for the discussion and the attempts to accommodate flit, but I'll bow out now. It's become clear that the way flit approaches packaging is fundamentally incompatible with the priorities other people have for the ecosystem. Namely, I see sdists as archival artifacts to be made approximately once per release, but the general trend is to make them a key part of the build pipeline.
Thanks Thomas for all the effort you've put into flit, the reviving of this pep, and the draft implementation you made. I'm sad to see you move away from this discussion, but I can understand it can be exhausting with the large number of exchanges and being twice almost done.
Making a guerilla tool with no concern for integration was fun. It became frustrating as people began to use it and expected it to play well with other tools, so I jumped on PEP 517 as a way to bring it into the fold. That didn't work out, and a tool that doesn't play well with pip can only be an attractive nuisance at best, even if it technically complies with the relevant specs.
Flit is therefore deprecated, and I recommend anyone using it migrate back to setup.py packaging.
This make me sad as well, honestly flit is the only tool I can remember how to use without having to lookup information online and was really pleasant to use. As long as it still work as is I might still continue publishing packages with it – even if its wheel only. It would have been nice to have some integration with pip though without too much complexity for you. I join Ralf in both his comments, and also hope the PEP will get back to a state were you'll consider un-deprecating flit and reintegrating your work. Thanks, -- Matthias
Best wishes, Thomas _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig