[Distutils] build system abstraction PEP

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Oct 27, 2015 10:58 PM, "Ralf Gommers" <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Robert Collins
>> <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> > Since Nathaniel seems busy, I've taken the liberty of drafting a
>> > narrow PEP based on the conversations that arose from the prior
>> > discussion.
>> >
>> > It (naturally) has my unique flavor, but builds on the work Nathaniel
>> > had put together, so I've put his name as a co-author even though he
>> > hasn't seen a word of it until now :) - all errors and mistakes are
>> > therefore mine...
>> >
>> > Current draft text in rendered form at:
>> > https://gist.github.com/rbtcollins/666c12aec869237f7cf7
>> >
>> > I've run it past Donald and he has a number of concerns - I think
>> > we'll need to discuss them here, and possibly in another hangout, to
>> > get a path forward.
>>
>> Now that I've had a chance to read it properly...
>>
>> First impression: there's surprisingly little overlap between this and
>> my simultaneously-posted draft [1] --
>
>
> Which is good, double work has been kept to a minimum - it's like you two
actually coordinated this:)
>
>>
>> my draft focuses on trying to
>> only document the stuff that everyone seemed to agree on, includes a
>> proposal for static metadata in sdists (since Donald seemed to be
>> saying that he considered this a mandatory component of any proposal
>> to update how sdists work), and tries to set out a blueprint for how
>> to organize the remaining issues, whereas yours spends most of its
>> time on the controversial details that I decided to skip over for this
>> draft.
>
>
> Imho they're not details. The controversial parts of your draft are still
mostly in the metadata part. If you'd split your draft in two, then you'd
see that the first one is pretty short and the second half of it is only
TBDs. And those TBDs are exactly what Robert's draft fills in.

Sure. When I say they're details, I don't mean they're unimportant; I just
mean that after that last thread got so big and tangled, I don't want to
spend time debating options for JSON formats if we don't yet have agreement
on the big picture of what we're trying to do, or try to debate semantics
and ipc conventions etc simultaneously.

-n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151027/744e4442/attachment.html>