[Distutils] moving things forward

[Alex Grönholm]

No, setuptools parses the install requirements before acting on setup 
requirements. That is the source of the problem. If setuptools only 
parsed and acted on setup requirements before even parsing install 
requirements, this wouldn't be an issue.

03.05.2016, 21:26, Leonardo Rochael Almeida kirjoitti:
>
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 15:07, Alex Grönholm <alex.gronholm at nextday.fi 
> <mailto:alex.gronholm at nextday.fi>> wrote:
>
>     Having setuptools process the setup requirements before parsing
>     install requirements would be a good step forward. Had that been
>     done before, we could've just added a setup requirement for a
>     newer setuptools to enable PEP 508 conditional requirements.
>
>
> Setuptools does process setup requirements before install 
> requirements. The "chicken and egg" issue with setuptools is that, 
> most of the time, setup requires are needed to calculate information 
> that is passed into the `setup()` call itself.
>
> For example information on header files coming from the C api of 
> `numpy` which is used to build extensions.
>
> This usually means importing code from the packages in "setup 
> requires" before setuptools has a chance to actually look at it.
>
> A simple fix would be to allow `setup()` keywords to accept functions 
> as well as direct values and only invoke the functions when the values 
> are actually needed, but this idea never gained traction.
>
> Of course, even if this was implemented, it wouldn't help directly 
> with "setup requiring" a new version of setuptools itself, unless 
> setuptools detected this situation and reinvoked setup.py from scratch.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo
>
>
>     03.05.2016, 21:04, Daniel Holth kirjoitti:
>>     We did separate build from install. Now we just want to be able
>>     to build without [having to emulate] distutils; just having some
>>     dependencies installed before setup.py runs would also be a great
>>     boon.
>>
>>     I'm reading part of this conversation as "a simple bdist_wheel
>>     bug is a reason to do a lot of work standardizing file formats"
>>     which I find unfortunate.
>>
>>     If he is still up for it let Robert implement his own PEP as the
>>     way forward for build system abstraction. The extra PEPs are just
>>     delaying action.
>>
>>     On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:11 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:p.f.moore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 3 May 2016 at 17:47, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io
>>         <mailto:donald at stufft.io>> wrote:
>>         > It will likely get decided as part of the build system PEP,
>>         whenever that
>>         > gets picked up again.
>>
>>         Yes, but on 15th March
>>         (https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028457.html)
>>         Robert posted
>>
>>         > Just to set expectations: this whole process seems stalled
>>         to me; I'm
>>         > going to context switch and focus on things that can move
>>         forward.
>>         > Someone please ping me when its relevant to put effort in
>>         again :).
>>
>>         And I think that's right. The whole build system PEP issue
>>         appears
>>         stalled from a lack of someone willing (or with the time) to
>>         make a
>>         call on the approach we take.
>>
>>         As far as I'm aware, the decision remains with Nick. With the
>>         possible
>>         exception of Donald's proposal (which AFAIK never got formally
>>         published as a PEP) everything that can be said on the other
>>         proposals
>>         has been said, and the remaining differences are ones of
>>         choice of
>>         approach rather than anything affecting capabilities. (Robert's
>>         message at
>>         https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028437.html
>>         summarised the state of the 3 proposals at the time).
>>
>>         I think this is something that should be resolved - we don't
>>         appear to
>>         be gaining anything by waiting, and until we have a decision
>>         on the
>>         approach that's being taken, we aren't going to get anyone
>>         writing
>>         code for their preferred option.
>>
>>         Nick - do you have the time to pick this up? Or does it need
>>         someone
>>         to step up as BDFL-delegate? Robert, Nathaniel, do you have
>>         time to
>>         spend on a final round of discussion on this, on the
>>         assumption that
>>         the goal will be a final decision at the end of it? Donald,
>>         do you
>>         have the time and interest to complete and publish your proposal?
>>
>>         Paul
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Distutils-SIG maillist  - Distutils-SIG at python.org
>>         <mailto:Distutils-SIG at python.org>
>>         https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Distutils-SIG maillist  -Distutils-SIG at python.org <mailto:Distutils-SIG at python.org>
>>     https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Distutils-SIG maillist  - Distutils-SIG at python.org
>     <mailto:Distutils-SIG at python.org>
>     https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20160503/3bd7aa9f/attachment-0001.html>