> On May 7, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net> wrote:
>
> Either we are defining the long term thing now, in which case that
> huge pile of complexity lands on us, and we have to get everything
> right.
>
> Or we are defining a thing which solves the present bug, and as long
> as we make sure it does not bind us in future, we're not hamstrung.
>
> E.g. use setup.cfg now. Add pybuild.toml later. (btw, terrible name,
> as pybuild is a thing in the debian space, and this will confuse the
> heck out of folk). https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Pybuild
I think this is roughly true, we could either do the simplest thing and just
add ``setup_requires`` to ``setup.cfg`` and teach pip how to understand them
and then worry about a new format later, or we can do a new format now and add
a bit of complexity to what we need to specify (though I don't think _too_ much
complexity, we don't have to define the build system stuff now, just make sure
we don't back ourselves into a corner with that).
I think either answer is OK, just the second one is a bit more work and we
might either get the start of a better format _now_ or end up regretting what
we pick when we add more things to it.
For both options I hear "pick a new format", which suggests we might as well do it from the get-go for clear separation of the new stuff and just bite the bullet instead of simply postponing a decision; it isn't like our format options are going to significantly change between now and later in the year.
-Brett