On 3/30/15 11:56 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 March 2015 at 16:45, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Well, parts of it are turing complete, since it pulls the version number out of the module itself and that’s just Python too.
Sorry, I wasn't specifically looking at flit there. But I'm in the camp that says just put the version in your ini file and in your module, and don't worry that you have it in 2 places. If managing version numbers is the biggest showstopper in moving to declarative metadata, then we've won :-)
Paul
Honestly, I don’t think that setup.py as a development interface is that bad. It gets really bad when we start sticking it inside of a sdist and using that as part of the installation metadata.
It’s not unusual for me to want (or need) to do something a little bit different in a project, or something that the original authors didn’t quite intend to do. This is perfectly valid and fine inside of a file that only ever gets executed on a developer machine. However it *needs* to be “compiled” down to a static file when creating a sdist.
Right, that is my understanding: setup.py is fine except when it is executed on installation. But I think there is a slight cognitive advantage to setup.ini vs. setup.py. You can never execute an ini file, even in development. So the same file can (somehow) be used in development and production without "compiling down" first. In other words: maybe switching to ini is the right thing to do long term. However, the practicality of doing so may be so small (due to disutils/setuptools baggage and/or inability to overcome setup.py momentum) that "compiling down" (setup.py) becomes a more attractive first step, at least.
--- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-- Alex Clark · http://about.me/alex.clark