Well it sounds like we're ready to actually fix that, by defining a reasonable universal Python sdist format.
On October 28, 2015 at 10:55:54 AM, David Cournapeau (cournape@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >
> > On 27 Oct 2015 13:30, "Daniel Holth" wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr. grumpy pants,
> > >
> > > Now you're trolling us by describing flit.
> >
> > I'd managed to miss Flit's creation, so I simply wasn't aware of it.
> >
> > Now that I've had a chance to remedy that oversight, yes, flit sounds
> > exactly like what I meant, so it could be worth recommending it ahead of a
> > full distutils/setuptools based setup.py for simple projects.
> >
>
> IMO, flit should be officially recommended until it at least supports
> building sdist. Not having this feature is a significant pain point for
> downstream distributors,
>
Assuming you meant “shouldn’t” I agree.
I feel like you are suggesting that the person who spent their time developing some software and then gave it to away, and then chose a build system that was convenient for them, is causing problems. We can prevent them from causing those problems by asking them to use the sdist file format. How much pain would we be looking at with accepting a github archive of a tag as the official source? Something like an extra debhelper script per build system?