On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I pretty much agree with you on all of this, but I don't think the > question should be ignored either--avoiding this question is one of > the things that got previous packaging reform efforts into trouble. > Though the agreement to treat "build" and "installation" as two > different stories mitigates the issue this time around. In any case > it's sort of off topic for this thread so I'll bring it up again > elsewhen. One thing I see as a possible short-term solution is to > still rely on some version of distutils as a build tool *only*. But > it would still be nice to have some easy way to standardize "in-place" > installation regardless of how extension modules get built.
That's exactly the interim solution I have in mind: for the moment, the "archive system" will be "python setup.py sdist" in an appropriate location and the "build system" will be "python setup.py bdist_wheel". Both will be modelled on pip's current behaviour when installing from sdists - the difference will be in the explicit invocation of the separate steps, rather than handling the whole chain with "setup.py install". Longer term I want to make setup.py optional even for source installs, but that requires further enhancements to the metadata. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
