On 22 October 2015 at 10:53, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 22:25, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> Reading this, the CLI options which have to be implemented are >> completely tied to setuptools' own view of the world. >> `--single-version-externally-managed`? `--install-headers`? Why should >> a random build system care about that gunk? What should it do with it? > > Sorry, maybe I didn't explain properly. That's what you can do right > now. It's certainly completely tied to setuptools' view of the world, > because that's what it was written for. But just because we supply > setuptools' options doesn't mean you have to use them (you can just > ignore most of the junk). > > Changing pip to work based on a more tool-neutral API is a bigger > piece of work, which has backward compatibility issues. It's doable, > but then we're back to the whole process of moving forward with a > better solution. As I've already said, we have a plan for that, it's > just happening slowly (apparently too slowly for some people, but > rather than helping with it they seem happier to propose alternative > approaches that we've typically considered in the past and discarded, > but hey, it's their free time and they can spend it how they like...) > >> I think Nathaniel's PEP, for all its shortcomings, looked much saner >> than that piece of ad-hoc specification (a.k.a. "here's the random set >> of things we're currently doing, let's make a spec out of it"). This is >> like the Microsoft OOXML of Python packages distribution. > > Absolutely 100%. That spec is just an attempt to document what's > there, because people keep saying "why do we have to use setuptools?" > and the answer is "you don't, you can ignore it as long as you emulate > this tiny portion of its API (and most of *that* you can ignore)". > > Nathaniel's PEP is much closer to what we need - people coming up with > a concrete way forward that builds on what we have. And the pushback > he got was where his proposal didn't take into account issues we knew > needed solving (and the real-time discussion they had seems to have > helped bring people's understanding a lot closer together, even though > progress seems to have stalled since then.
Nathaniel said he was going to follow up on it with the improvements from the discussion. If he can't, someone else certainly can. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
