On 10 February 2016 at 22:21, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > Wait. You are missing the point that the setup.py interface > already does work, so no extra effort is needed. All that's > needed is some documentation of what's currently being used, > so that other tools can support the interface going forward.
One of the key points of the proposal is to be able to write *one* setuptools/distutils shim, and then never having to write another one, regardless of how many build systems people come up with [1]. The build system abstraction PEP itself comes from figuring out what pip needs (i.e. the "minimal interface" you're after), and documenting that specifically, without the distracting noise that comes from documenting it in terms of "how pip calls setup.py" (which includes things like passing "--single-version-externally-managed", which only makes sense in the context of setuptools originally being designed to serve the needs of the Chandler project). Cheers, Nick. [1] If we never end up with a build system called "rennet", I am going to be most disappointed :) -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
