[Distutils] Fwd: Re: PEP 517 again
xoviat at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 00:33:50 EDT 2017
Just this morning, Paul said the following:
That step's the problem. If the frontend does that it can potentially
be copying a lot of unneeded stuff (VCS history, for example). We
tried that with pip and it was a major issue. That problem is the
*whole point* of all the discussions about the various proposals that
ended up with build_tree.
I took that to mean that we were trusting the backend to do the right
thing. And most people agreed with that. I don't personally care but there
does seem to be some miscommunication here.
On Aug 24, 2017 11:24 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:17 PM, xoviat <xoviat at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm *not* OK with banning in-tree builds in the spec, since that's
> > > both unnecessary and unenforceable
> > Well then either we can trust the backend or we cannot. If we can, then
> > is both necessary and enforceable. If not, then we're back to pip copying
> > files. You can't make and argument that it's okay to trust build_sdist
> > not build_wheel.
> I think at this point everyone has made their peace with the pip
> developers' decision that they want to keep copying files -- at least
> for now -- and that's just how it's going to be. This email has a more
> detailed discussion of the options, their "threat model", and the
> I can see an argument for adding language saying that build_sdist
> SHOULD avoid modifying the source tree if possible, and MAY write
> scratch files to the sdist_directory.
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG