On 1/29/19 7:46 AM, David Shawley wrote:
I agree with pip's view that the presence of pyproject.toml means that you are *explicitly* announcing compliance with PEP-517. The unexpected part was that the setuptools build-system shim was incomplete. This will be addressed shortly if Paul Ganssle has anything to do with it (thanks Paul!).
Thanks for the shout out, and I really do appreciate the recognition, but I would like to clarify that if anything I have /delayed/ getting this fixed with my insistence that the semantics should be different between setuptools.build_meta and setup.py. I think there are already some useful features of this distinction, but it's certainly true that if we had simply modified the path in the existing build backend, this would be fixed now (with the release of the latest setuptools) instead of necessitating a new pip release.
Anyway, even if I was right to insist on this distinction, I don't want to take the credit for fixing this when a lot of people put in a lot of effort discussing this and working out the right path forward, which is very tough in packaging, where people want many new and useful features, but they're also weary of all the churn in their build and deployment system.
That said, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm complaining that you complimented my work. I would hate to make you think that someone could be bothered by the fact that you thanked an open source maintainer.