[Distutils] A smaller step towards de-specializing setuptools/distutils
dholth at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 10:29:15 EST 2015
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:21 PM Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> On November 1, 2015 at 6:45:16 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan at gmail.com)
> > > However, I also think there's one refinement we can make that
> > lets us
> > drop the need for a copy-and-paste "setup.py", *without* needing
> > to
> > define a programmatic build system API: let setup.cfg define
> > a module
> > name to invoke with "python -m " instead of running
> > "setup.py”.
> I think we should wait on this. We can always add it later, we can’t
> (easily) remove it. Defining the ``setup.py`` interface like I did for the
> /simple/ interface has benefits even completely removed from the goal of
> supporting alternative build systems. Once we get the details sorted out
> for how it affects the world of packaging to sanely allow alternative build
> systems, then we can figure out what it would look like to allow invocation
> without a setup.py script.
> Defining a brand new interface is a lot harder than defining the existing
One problem with setup.py is that pip doesn't like it when egg_info
produces a dist-info directory. Is it impossible to define setup.py
dist-info as "write current-format wheel metadata to a target directory"?
Or we could just standardize the egg-info requires.txt. A plain text list
of requirements, one per line, needing no extras or markers is all that pip
needs at this phase. It doesn't even mind if you put that into a .dist-info
directory in the target folder.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG