On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 August 2016 at 02:46, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > Maybe the alternative to setuptools_lite is to set up one of these other > > tools to work well (easily) for building python packages. If it can do > > everything that setuptools can do (that we want setuptools to do), and > just > > as easily, maybe that's the next step forward. > > > > but if that isn't happening soon, then a setuptools_lite would be a > useful > > step forward. > > Enabling folks to more easily use existing build systems like Scons, > Waf, Meson, CMake, et al is one of the main goals of pyproject.toml. > > Daniel Holth has a working Scons proof of concept at > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/enscons that actually works independently > of pyproject.toml support in pip by using a boilerplate setup.py to do > the bootstrapping and invocation of the build system. > > It's why we don't particularly want to replace distutils/setuptools > with any build system in particular - the world actually has a surfeit > of cross-platform build systems, and many of them are written in > Python and are hence quite friendly to being bootstrapped for use in > building Python extension modules. > Indeed. Having been involved w/ the mess that is numpy.distutils, this was (and still is) the major issue w/ distutils for the scientific/pydata crowd. Conflating packaging and building is an impediment to deploy software to different platforms (build is generally better handled by developers, packaging by platform-specific packagers). David
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
