[Distutils] Fwd: Re: PEP 517 again
xoviat at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 00:52:38 EDT 2017
Actually after reading the email that Nathaniel referenced, I disagree with
Nick's position on in-tree builds. It's absolutely necessary because the
tree may be read only and it's enforceable by pip through a simple
On Aug 24, 2017 11:33 PM, "xoviat" <xoviat at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> > 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