[Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

[Robert Collins]

On 17 February 2016 at 20:13, Marius Gedminas <marius at gedmin.as> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:10:43PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
>> diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst b/build-system-abstraction.rst
>> index a6e4712..56464f1 100644
>> --- a/build-system-abstraction.rst
>> +++ b/build-system-abstraction.rst
>> @@ -68,12 +68,15 @@ modelled on pip's existing use of the setuptools
>> setup.py interface.
>>  pypa.json
>>  ---------
>>
>> -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
>>  tools that want to build source trees to consult for configuration. The
>>  absence of a ``pypa.json`` file in a Python source tree implies a setuptools
>>  or setuptools compatible build system.
>>
>> -The JSON has the following schema. Extra keys are ignored.
>> +The JSON has the following schema. Extra keys are ignored, which permits the
>> +use of ``pypa.json`` as a configuration file for other related tools. If doing
>> +that the chosen keys must be namespaced - e.g. ``flit`` with keys under that
>> +rather than (say) ``build`` or other generic keys.
>
> Is this going to be a file that human beings are expected to edit by
> hand?
>
> If so, can we please not use JSON?  JSON is rather hostile to humans: no
> trailing commas, no possibility to add comments.

Find another format thats ideally in the standard library, with an as
clean language-neutral schema. Yaml isn't. Toml isn't. $bikeshed.

Honestly - If this is the bit we bog down on, great - someone can
spend the time finding a thing to use here, but as discussed
previously, I don't care: the PEP editor that accepts the PEP can tell
me what format should be there, and I'll put it there. Until then, I
don't want to think about it because its not interesting.

-Rob


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