On 20 Mar 2014 23:16, "Brett Cannon" <bcannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu Mar 20 2014 at 12:51:13 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 March 2014 09:54, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Daniel Holth <dholth <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> extensions without using distutils. The problem of invoking the
>> >> compiler has been solved by many build systems and is not just a
>> >> unique and mysterious distutils feature.
>> >
>> > Did someone say it was? Building extensions is something distil does too, and
>> > without using distutils or setuptools.
>>
>> Right, the problem is the lack of a standard interface for how the
>> packaging system is supposed to invoke them - that is, *implementation
>> independent* docs of what the various setup.py commands are *supposed*
>> to do.
>>
>> The packaging system shouldn't have to care *how* setup.py is
>> implemented, but at the moment, the behaviour is underspecified to the
>> point where it's a matter of reverse engineering distutils and/or
>> implementing what seems necessary and waiting to see if people
>> complain.
>
>
> What are the plans for the build step in the grand plan of Python packaging? I think previously it has been suggested that once metadata is done and distribution/installation is taken care of the distutils/setuptools building part of all of this will be tackled. Is that still accurate?

That's the priority list for my personal focus, but I certainly wouldn't complain if there was momentum behind addressing the build side in parallel, rather than in series. Commenting on PEPs is usually easier than writing them, and the starting point for the build side is mostly just defining a suitable subset of setup.py commands, options, behaviour and invocation context that will make up the "fallback legacy interface" a new metabuild system would need regardless of any other details.

I just don't have the personal bandwidth to champion such an effort at this point in time.

Cheers,
Nick.