On 14 August 2013 11:55, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think I'm okay with this so long as it remains optional. I'm not > crazy about executable build specs where they're not necessary. For > most cases, especially in pure Python packages, it's frequently > overkill and asking for trouble. So I would still want to see a > well-accepted static build spec for Python packages too (sort of a la > setup.cfg as parsed by d2to1, only better), though I realize that's a > separate issue from PEP 426.
Sure, the main point of PEP 426 is to make it so the packaging ecosystem doesn't need to *care* about the user facing formats. YAML, ini, Python, doesn't matter :) My current plan is to focus on formalising pydist.json as the main vehicle for communicating between build tools and installers. I had previously been thinking we could postpone defining the build system hooks, but I now think it makes more sense to formalise that as well before declaring metadata 2.0 ready for general use. In the meantime, we'll continue getting by with setup.py and the setuptools metadata formats :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
