[Distutils] Entry points: specifying and caching
brett at python.org
Fri Oct 20 13:53:13 EDT 2017
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 17:54 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2017 at 04:18, Alex Grönholm <alex.gronholm at nextday.fi>
>> Daniel Holth kirjoitti 18.10.2017 klo 21:06:
>> It is not very complicated. It looks like the characters are mostly
>> 'python identifier' rules with a little bit of 'package name' rules.
>> I am also concerned about the amount of parsing on startup. A hard
>> problem for certain, since no one likes outdated cache problems either. It
>> is also unpleasant to have too much code with a runtime dependency on
>> Wasn't someone working on implementing pkg_resources in the standard
>> library at some point?
> The idea has been raised, but we've been hesitant for the same reason
> we're inclined to take distutils out: packaging APIs need to be free to
> evolve in line with packaging interoperability standards, rather than with
> the Python language definition.
> Barry Warsaw & Brett Cannon recently mentioned something to me about
> working on a potential runtime alternative to pkg_resources that could be
> installed without also installing setuptools, but I don't know any of the
> specifics (and I'm not sure either of them follows distutils-sig).
I've been following distutils-sig for a couple of years now. :)
And what Barry and I are working on is only a subset of pkg_resources,
specifically the reading of data files included in a package. We aren't
touching any other aspect of pkg_resources.
Heck, until this discussion, "entry points" == "console scripts" for me so
I don't really know what y'all are talking about standardizing when it
comes to plug-in systems and metadata. Having said that, I do understand
why Donald doesn't want to just go ahead and standardize something by
giving it the level of a spec on packaging.python.org just because it's out
there. But since entry points seem to be used widely enough, having them
written down appropriately also seems reasonable.
As a compromise, could entry points be documented as Thomas is suggesting,
but have a note at the top saying something along the lines of "entry
points are considered a setuptools-specific feature, but their wide spread
use warrants a clear understanding of how they function for other packaging
tools choose on their own to also support them"? Basically acknowledge
there are ad-hoc, folk standards in the community that a decent chunk of
people rely on and thus docs would be helpful, but don't need to be
promoted to full-on, everyone-implements standard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG