Re: [Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

On Aug 28, 2016, at 22:28, Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] > The grey area is cases like the one Sylvain is proposing, where it's a > straightforward API addition to distutils with no backwards > compatibility implications, and where we (as in distutils-sig/PyPA) > want to encourage

Re: [Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

On 29 August 2016 at 03:05, Brett Cannon wrote: > The discussion of Sylvain's proposed changes to distutils suggests that > there isn't a clear-cut agreement or position of this SIG -- and thus Python > -- on changes to distutils, its future, etc. Is there an official position >

Re: [Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

Distutils seems to be the de-facto standard for building extension modules for Python and it is used for most of the third-party extensions out there. I don’t think that it is reasonable to declare that it is now only meant for Python itself. I actually see a contradiction in pointing out some

Re: [Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

On 28 August 2016 at 18:05, Brett Cannon wrote: > The discussion of Sylvain's proposed changes to distutils suggests that > there isn't a clear-cut agreement or position of this SIG -- and thus Python > -- on changes to distutils, its future, etc. Is there an official position >

Re: [Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

My sense of the current position is: - distutils exists for both Python and the broader ecosystem to build both extension modules and package distributions - we recognise that its able to do anything, but many folk find it hard to work with - or are already invested in other build tools -

[Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?

The discussion of Sylvain's proposed changes to distutils suggests that there isn't a clear-cut agreement or position of this SIG -- and thus Python -- on changes to distutils, its future, etc. Is there an official position I'm not aware of? If not, could we get one so we know how to handle any

Re: [Distutils] Proposed new Distutils API for compiler flagdetection (Issue26689)

On 29 August 2016 at 01:44, Sylvain Corlay wrote: > Regarding compatibility, I have been using this on a variety of platforms > and compilers for some time already. > > I think that monkey-patching distutils.ccompiler from setuptools is a dirty > solution and should only

Re: [Distutils] Proposed new Distutils API for compiler flagdetection (Issue26689)

Regarding compatibility, I have been using this on a variety of platforms and compilers for some time already. I think that monkey-patching distutils.ccompiler from setuptools is a dirty solution and should only be provided as a patch for earlier versions of python. At the moment, setuptools does

Re: [Distutils] Proposed new Distutils API for compiler flagdetection (Issue26689)

Some of the core development team will be sprinting full time for the week leading up to beta 1, so expect a lot of things to get added then. My main concern with this is compatibility rather than the interface, but as a new feature I think it's best to be only in setuptools. Distutils is

Re: [Distutils] Proposed new Distutils API for compiler flag detection (Issue26689)

Hi All, The beta deadline for new features is approaching dangerously. I agree with Thomas that being able to require Python 3.6 for a project does not appear so distant for me (as soon as it is a Python 3 project only). Any chance to get this through? Checking support for language features