[Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

[Paul Moore]

On 16 February 2016 at 03:10, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutron configuration file for pip and other
> +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file for pip and other

Aw, I was looking forward to controlling my nuclear power plant with pip :-(

Oh, and "acts as a" rather than just "acts as".

> +We discussed having an sdist verb. The main driver for this was to make sure
> +that build systems were able to produce sdists that pip can build - but this is
> +circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists
> +reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. Further, while
> +most everyone agrees that encouraging sdists to be uploaded to PyPI, there

s/most/almost/

"to be uploaded to PyPI"... what? The phrase isn't complete.
Presumably "is a good thing".

> +wasn't complete consensus on that.

And I didn't think there was any dispute over this. There were people
who didn't want to disallow binary-only projects, but that's hardly
the same as not encouraging people who *are* making sources public to
put them in the same place as the binaries.

I thought the key point was that we'd agreed to Nick's suggestion that
we add some comments to the existing specifications to note that you
could bundle up a source tree with a pypa.json and get something
sufficient for new pips to install, so this provided a sufficiently
well-defined "source upload format" to work until discussions on a new
source format came to fruition?

Specifically, my expectation is that this PEP require that the
specification changes proposed by Nick be implemented. Sure, it's an
informational change to a document, but it's important that this PEP
acknowledge that the action was part of the consensus.

Paul