On Thu Mar 20 2014 at 12:51:13 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 09:54, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Daniel Holth <dholth <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > >> extensions without using distutils. The problem of invoking the > >> compiler has been solved by many build systems and is not just a > >> unique and mysterious distutils feature. > > > > Did someone say it was? Building extensions is something distil does > too, and > > without using distutils or setuptools. > > Right, the problem is the lack of a standard interface for how the > packaging system is supposed to invoke them - that is, *implementation > independent* docs of what the various setup.py commands are *supposed* > to do. > > The packaging system shouldn't have to care *how* setup.py is > implemented, but at the moment, the behaviour is underspecified to the > point where it's a matter of reverse engineering distutils and/or > implementing what seems necessary and waiting to see if people > complain. > What are the plans for the build step in the grand plan of Python packaging? I think previously it has been suggested that once metadata is done and distribution/installation is taken care of the distutils/setuptools building part of all of this will be tackled. Is that still accurate?
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
