[Distutils] Comments on PEP 426
oscar.j.benjamin at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 19:30:07 CEST 2013
On 29 August 2013 18:11, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
> It probably makes sense for some version of bdist_wheel to be merged
> into setuptools eventually. In that system pip would document which
> setup.py commands and arguments it uses and a non-distutils-derived
> setup.py would have to implement a minimal set of commands to
> interoperate. This is basically where we are today minus the "minimal"
> and "documented" details.
> The alternative, not mutually exclusive solution would be to define a
> Python-level detect/build plugin system for pip which would call a
> few methods to generate an installable from a source distribution.
> It doesn't exist yet mostly because the pip developers haven't written
> enough alternative build systems. There is no strategic reason for the
I thought that the list in the PEP seemed reasonable:
python setup.py dist_info
python setup.py sdist
python setup.py build_ext --inplace
python setup.py test
python setup.py bdist_wheel
Most projects already have a setup.py that can do these things with
the exception of bdist_wheel. The only ambiguity is that it's not
clear whether the expectation is *exactly* those invocations or
whether any other command line options etc. would be needed.
Can it not simply be documented that these are the commands needed by
current packaging tools (and return codes, expected behaviour, ...) to
fit with the current bleeding edge infrastructure?
I would have thought that that would be good enough as a stop-gap
while a better non-setup.py solution awaits.
More information about the Distutils-SIG