FYI distutils supports out of tree builds too. It is the -b argument to 'setup.py build'.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:08 AM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, please note that the proposal doesn't *prohibit* in-place > builds, quite the opposite, it allows backends to decide when asked > how to implement both in-place and out of place builds (where the > current tree allows backends to decide how to do in place builds and > how to copy trees, and leaves the frontend to decide how to implement > out of place builds, typically via something like a tree copy and > subsequent in-place build). > > On 7 July 2017 at 12:05, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7 July 2017 at 11:30, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Is it absolutely necessary to get this into the first PEP? > > > > As far as I'm concerned, it's no more than a restating (and > > simplification?) of all the discussions around building out of tree > > via creating an sdist and unpacking it, or having the various prepare > > files hooks. It's always been there and always been a requirement. > > > >> This proposal creates substantial complications for build systems that > default to doing in-place builds > > > > Well, we're focused on build systems that will get a PEP 517 > > interface, so far the only concrete examples we have are flit (which > > has no problem with this), enscons (which has no problem with it) and > > probably setuptools, in some form (which needs out-of-tree builds > > based on our experience with it in pip, although I concede that you > > would argue that point). > > > > Also, out of tree builds are something that pip is planning on > > implementing, and for us it's therefore necessary to have hooks that > > let us do that. The current version of the PEP provides those hooks, > > and we're planning on using them to do out of tree builds. This new > > suggestion is basically backend authors saying "you don't need to do > > the out of place builds, we're willing to take responsibility for > > that". If you're saying that you're not happy with that, then all that > > will end up happening is we revert to the previous approach, and pip > > implements out of tree builds based on that (and I guess you have the > > same argument all over again on the PR for the pip change...) > > > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
