On 12 Feb, 2013, at 8:08, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, to my mind, the next PEP we're missing is actually one for the > *sdist* format itself, including a definition for how the > meta-packaging system should invoke the sdist->wheel build step, > rather than one for the Archiver/Builder configuration data (which is > what PEP 390 tries to be, and which I'm not convinced needs to be > standardised at all, so long as the Archiver takes care of translating > it to the standard formats).
PEP 390 removes the need for having a setup.py file when using the distutils Builder, and should make it easier to migrate to some other build. Just using it for distutils (as the PEPs title mentions) would be a win. > > My primary near(ish) term objectives are to ensure: > - a project's choice of Archiver or Builder should *NOT* affect a > user's choice of Installer (or vice-versa) > - given an sdist and no other information, it should be possible to > create any bdist_* format Sounds like a good plan. > > PEPs 426 and 427 between them should achieve the first objective, > while the other parts of PEP 426 should get us a long way towards > achieving the second (with "./setup.py bdist_wheel" as the interim > build hook, pending the introduction of anything better in a PEP for a > clarified sdist format). How far do you want to standardize the sdist format? For the goals you mentioned earlier you'd only have to specify that an sdist contains a configuration file that says which builder should be used. It might be nice if the full PKG-INFO contents were also available to extract some metadata without invoking the builder. Ronald _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig