[Distutils] d2to1 setup.cfg schema

[Robert Collins]

On 25 March 2015 at 11:51, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Extending d2to1 to accept "install-requires" as meaning the same thing as
> the existing "requires-dist" (and complaining if a setup.cfg file contains
> both) would make sense to me, as it provides a more obvious migration path
> from setuptools, and pairs up nicely with a new "setup-requires" section for
> setup.py dependencies.

I'm inclined to patch setuptools directly; with setuptools no longer
decaying, we don't need to work around the codebase - we can work on
it.

> (It also occurs to me that we should probably ask the d2to1 folks if they'd
> be interested in bringing the project under the PyPA banner as happened with
> setuptools, distlib, etc. It's emerged as a key piece of the transition from
> Turing complete build process customisation to static build metadata
> configuration)

Thanks for reminding me that transitioning to static build metadata
configuration is a /goal/ - that should make the debate around my PR
simpler :).

> As the converse of the above, I think pip should also accept the PEP 345
> defined "requires-dist" as equivalent to "install-requires" (and similarly
> complain if a file defines both, but in pip's case, only emitting a warning
> and then treating them as a single combined section)

I've implemented supporting both, erroring if both are present at
once, and not warning (at this stage - we can add a warning later
methinks). Tis rude to warn when things are bleeding edge.

>> What do folk think?
>
> To summarise my view: I think it makes the most sense to use setuptools
> inspired section names, and teach d2to1 about them, while also having pip
> understand the existing PEP 345 defined section name.

Roughly done; we're pending Jason's input and buy-in ATM on the pip PR :)

-Rob


-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud