Chris Withers wrote: > The thing is, there's just no need for all this code to be in setup.py. > > For me, anything more than: > > from xxx import setup > setup() > > ...in the case where all the information is in setup.cfg is totally > unacceptable.
FWIW, I have played a bit with something in that direction - this is not a suggestion for anything at that point, just a toy prototype to play with some ideas I have concerning a new distribution tool in python: http://github.com/cournape/toydist The basis is a static file format, but richer that the proposed PEP 390: - the goal is to be able to describe fully a package from the static data: meta-data, packages, doc, extensions, etc... - converting from existing setup.py to a static file is possible through an API (one could have a distutils command to automatically generate such a file) - a two lines toysetup.py can build basic packages from an existing toysetup.info static file - for the majority of packages out there (the ones which do not extend distutils, basically), the passage setup.py -> toysetup.info -> toysetup.py should be "lossless". This is huge IMHO, because it provides a transition to a system which does not depend on distutils anymore. An example of the static file is: """ Name: hello Version: 1.0 Library: BuildRequires: paver, sphinx, numpy if os(windows) BuildRequires: pywin32 Packages: hello Extension: hello._bar sources: src/hellomodule.c if os(linux) Extension: hello._linux_backend sources: src/linbackend.c """ The corresponding setup.py is simply: """ from distutils.core import setup from toydist import parse_static info_dict = parse_static('toysetup.info').to_dict() setup(**info_dict) """ The format is basically a rip-of from cabal (haskell distribution format) at this point, cheers, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
