[Distutils] PEP: Build system abstraction for pip/conda etc
ralf.gommers at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 02:50:29 EST 2016
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 13:23, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10 February 2016 at 20:53, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We don't have to solve the whole "sdist 2.0" issue right now. Simply
> >> saying that in order to publish pypa.json-based source trees you need
> >> to zip up the source directory, name the file "project-version.zip"
> >> and upload to PyPI, would be sufficient as a short-term answer
> >> (assuming that this *would* be a viable "source file" that pip could
> >> use - and I must be clear that I *haven't checked this*!!!)
This is exactly what pip itself does right now for "pip install .", so
clearly it is viable.
> >> something like Nathaniel's source distribution proposal, or a
> >> full-blown sdist-2.0 spec, is available. We'd need to support whatever
> >> stopgap proposal we recommend for backward compatibility in those new
> >> proposals, but that's a necessary cost of not wanting to delay the
> >> current PEP on those other ones.
> > One of the reasons I went ahead and created the specifications page at
> > https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/ was to let us
> > tweak interoperability requirements as needed, without wasting
> > people's time with excessive PEP wrangling by requiring a separate PEP
> > for each interface affected by a proposal.
> > In this case, the build system abstraction PEP should propose some
> > additional text for
> > defining how to publish source archives containing a pypa.json file
> > and the setup.py shim.
The setup.py shim should be optional right? If a package author decides to
not care about older pip versions, then the shim isn't needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG