[Distutils] Changing the "install hooks" mechanism for PEP 426

[Nick Coghlan]

On 15 Aug 2013 00:39, "Vinay Sajip" <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> PJ Eby <pje <at> telecommunity.com> writes:
>
> > The build system *should* reserve at least one (subdivisible)
> > namespace for itself, and use that mechanism for its own extension,
>
> +1 - dog-food :-)

Sounds fair - let's use "pydist", since we want these definitions to be
somewhat independent of their reference implementation in distlib :)

Based on PJE's feedback, I'm also starting to think that the
exports/extensions split is artificial and we should drop it. Instead,
there should be a "validate" export hook that build tools can call to check
for export validity, and the contents of an export group be permitted to be
arbitrary JSON.

So we would have "pydist.commands" and "pydist.export_hooks" as export
groups, with "distlib" used as an example of how to define handlers for
them.

The installers are still going to have to be export_hooks aware, though,
since the registered handlers are how the whole export system will be
bootstrapped.

Something else I'm wondering: should the metabuild system be separate, or
is it just some more export hooks and you define the appropriate export
group to say which build system to invoke? And rather than each installer
having to define their own fallback, we'd just implement the appropriate
hooks in setuptools to call setup.py. (Installers would still need an
explicit fallback for legacy metadata).

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> Regards,
>
> Vinay Sajip
>
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130815/705b5b4a/attachment.html>