[Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

[xoviat]

The OP was about "bootstrapping setuptools." If, as Leonardo said, we only
isolate on the first level (requirements from install_requires or user will
be isolated but requirements from build_requires will share the same
environment as the invoker of build_requires if they are not wheels), then
that opens up some interesting possibilities. However, I don't necessarily
think that this is a good idea because it opens up situations that could be
nasty to debug.

I still think the simpler method would be as I have said previously, to
have a very minimal backend that doesn't depend on anything and simply
archives the files and info. We can even put this backend into a separate
package that requires and depends on nothing, so that future build systems
don't have to re-invent the wheel here.

The question that I have is: how does flit address this issue? Does flit
require external dependencies to bootstrap itself?

2017-08-22 13:50 GMT-05:00 Jim Fulton <jim at jimfulton.info>:

> Oh, gawd. From now on, someone will have to say buildout 3 times before I
> appear.
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, xoviat <xoviat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So are we going for a "primarily isolation" approach then where builds
>> are only isolated on the first level, but subsequent levels share the same
>> build environment?
>>
>
> I'm a huge fan of isolation, but isolation seems to me to be orthogonal to
> this discussion.
>
> I'm done with this thread. :)
>
> Jim
>
>
>>
>> 2017-08-22 10:23 GMT-05:00 Jim Fulton <jim at jimfulton.info>:
>>
>>> I didn't mention (nor do I recall anyone mentioning) venvs.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> venvs within venvs... terrifying concept.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jim Fulton <jim at jimfulton.info>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't this a special case of needing . on sys.path when building a
>>>>>> package? Then the same version of setuptools that is being packaged builds
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. The issue for us it wasn't setuptools itself, but it's
>>>>> dependencies and those dependencies conflicted with dependencies of of
>>>>> packages we were installing *and* those packages importing these
>>>>> dependences (indirectly) in their setup scripts.  Setup scripts that import
>>>>> the thing they're about to install, generally to get the version :(, is
>>>>> something I'd love to see go away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Fulton
>>>>> http://jimfulton.info
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Fulton
>>> http://jimfulton.info
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jim Fulton
> http://jimfulton.info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20170822/2468b832/attachment-0001.html>