On Thu Mar 20 2014 at 12:51:13 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20 March 2014 09:54, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Daniel Holth <dholth <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> extensions without using distutils. The problem of invoking the
>> compiler has been solved by many build systems and is not just a
>> unique and mysterious distutils feature.
>
> Did someone say it was? Building extensions is something distil does too, and
> without using distutils or setuptools.

Right, the problem is the lack of a standard interface for how the
packaging system is supposed to invoke them - that is, *implementation
independent* docs of what the various setup.py commands are *supposed*
to do.

The packaging system shouldn't have to care *how* setup.py is
implemented, but at the moment, the behaviour is underspecified to the
point where it's a matter of reverse engineering distutils and/or
implementing what seems necessary and waiting to see if people
complain.

What are the plans for the build step in the grand plan of Python packaging? I think previously it has been suggested that once metadata is done and distribution/installation is taken care of the distutils/setuptools building part of all of this will be tackled. Is that still accurate?