On 31 May 2017 at 15:05, Thomas Kluyver email@example.com wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017, at 03:00 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
I would be fine with specifying a hook to copy only the files needed to build the wheel, but if we do that, let's not call it 'sdist' or anything that suggests that.
I agree - I've been trying to push away from using the term "sdist" myself, as there's too much history with it, most of which isn't (IMO) relevant in this context.
Also, if this is all we're after, I'd like to push again for making it optional - for flit, the resulting wheel will always be the same whether you copy the files somewhere else first or just build from the original source tree. It's less to implement and more performant if flit can just build the wheel directly, and skip the copying step.
Hmm. The proposed API (whether it's "create a sdist" or "tell me what files to copy") is intended so that a frontend can use the following process:
Pip basically does this currently, and it's probably out of scope for this PEP to look at changing that. The current discussion is really only about whether we need a hook at step 2, or whether "copy the whole source tree" is sufficient. Clearly, in one sense, it is sufficient, because that's what pip has to do at the moment, but we have outstanding bug reports flagging that our copy step is sometimes severely inefficient, and without the proposed hook, we have no way of improving things. The benefit of a formal hook is that it gives the backend control of the process, but that only helps if the tools that cause us issues currently, like setuptools_scm, work with the backend, specifically to control what gets copied so that it's sufficient.
Backends like flit probably have no need for this flexibility, but should probably follow some form of standard rule like "exclude VCS and tox control directories". It may make sense to implement that rule in the frontend (on the usual "one frontend, multiple backends" basis) but I'm inclined to think that choice should be opt-in, not make it the default if a backend doesn't implement the hook. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, though.
By the way, in theory with this workflow, there's some pretty bizarre misbehaviours that backends could implement. Consider a backend that does "build sdist" by preprocessing the current directory, and writing a sdist that uses a completely different backend (e.g., a "setuptools_scm" backend that writes sdists that freeze the version data and use flit to build). Then step (4) needs to re-read the backend before running the "build wheel" hook. That's actually a not-unreasonable way to handle tools like setuptools_scm, so we should probably take a view on whether it's allowable. Specifically, there's a choice the spec needs to make between
Ever get the feeling that you shouldn't have looked too closely at something? :-)