I would vote for option 2, again in the spirit of explicit better than implicit (as maintainer of tox). pip should raise an error I think and fail the build. 

That being said, we don't want to start breaking existing packages. So what about doing a release of pip that raises a warning first, this gives a grace period of 1 month for people to fix their packages? And then switch over to breaking.


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:34 PM Pradyun Gedam <pradyunsg@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey everyone!

In PEP 518, it is not clearly specified how a project that has a pyproject.toml
file but has no build-system.requires should be treated (i.e. build-system

In pip 10, such a pyproject.toml file was ​allowed and built with setuptools
and wheel, which has resulted in a lot of projects making releases that assumed
that such a pyproject.toml file is valid and they use setuptools and wheel.
I understand that at least pytest, towncrier and Twisted might have done so.
This happen​ed ​since these projects have included configuration for some tool in
pyproject.toml (some of which use ​only pyproject.toml for configuration --
black, towncrier).

There's a little bit of subtlety here, in pip 10's implementation: adding a
pyproject.toml file enables a new code path that does the build in isolation
(in preparation for PEP 517; it's a good idea on it's own too) with only the
build-system.requires packages ​available. When the build-system.requires key
is missing, pip falls back to assuming it should be ["setuptools", "wheel"].
The in-development version of pip currently prints warnings when the key is
not specified -- along the lines​ ​of "build-system.requires is missing" +
"A future version of pip will reject pyproject.toml files that do not comply
with PEP 518." and falls back to legacy behavior.

Basically, pip 10 has a distinction between a missing pyproject.toml and
build-system.requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"] and the PEP doesn't. However,
the PEP's precise wording here would help inform the debate about how pip
should behave in this edge case.

I can think of at least 2 options for behavior when build-system.requires is

1. Consider a missing build-system.requires equivalent to either a missing
   pyproject.toml or build-system.requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"].

2. Making the build-system table mandatory in pyproject.toml.

I personally think (2) would be fine -- "Explicit is better than implicit."

It'll be easy to detect and error out in this case, in a way that it's possible
to provide meaningful information to the user about what to do here. However,
this does mean that some existing releases of projects become not-installable,
which is concerning; I do think the benefits outweigh the costs though.

Thoughts on this?


Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/7A4QHWCHR54TSIO2DQZUVNZHZS6ZPBLY/