On 13 January 2016 at 22:23, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> I agree that talking about such things on distutils-sig tends to elicit a >> certain amount of puzzled incomprehension, but I don't think it matters -- >> wheels already have everything you need to support this. > > well, that's what I figured -- and I started down that path a while back and > got no support whatsoever (OK, some from Matthew Brett -- thanks!). But I > know myself well enough to know I wasn't going to get the critical mass > required to make it useful by myself, so I've moved on to an ecosystem that > is doing most of the work already.
I think the problem with discussing these things on distutils-sig is that the discussions are often very theoretical. In reality PyPA are waiting for people to adopt the infrastructure that they have created so far by uploading sets of binary wheels. Once that process really kicks off then as issues emerge there will be real specific problems to solve and a more concrete discussion of what changes are needed to wheel/pip/PyPI can emerge. The main exceptions to this are wheels for Linux and non-setuptools build dependencies for sdists so it's definitely good to pursue those problems and try to complete the basic infrastructure. > Also, you have the problem that there is one PyPi -- so where do you put > your nifty wheels that depend on other binary wheels? you may need to fork > every package you want to build :-( Is this a real problem or a theoretical one? Do you know of some situation where this wheel to wheel dependency will occur that won't just be solved in some other way? -- Oscar _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
