On 25 March 2015 at 11:51, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > Extending d2to1 to accept "install-requires" as meaning the same thing as > the existing "requires-dist" (and complaining if a setup.cfg file contains > both) would make sense to me, as it provides a more obvious migration path > from setuptools, and pairs up nicely with a new "setup-requires" section for > setup.py dependencies.
I'm inclined to patch setuptools directly; with setuptools no longer decaying, we don't need to work around the codebase - we can work on it. > (It also occurs to me that we should probably ask the d2to1 folks if they'd > be interested in bringing the project under the PyPA banner as happened with > setuptools, distlib, etc. It's emerged as a key piece of the transition from > Turing complete build process customisation to static build metadata > configuration) Thanks for reminding me that transitioning to static build metadata configuration is a /goal/ - that should make the debate around my PR simpler :). > As the converse of the above, I think pip should also accept the PEP 345 > defined "requires-dist" as equivalent to "install-requires" (and similarly > complain if a file defines both, but in pip's case, only emitting a warning > and then treating them as a single combined section) I've implemented supporting both, erroring if both are present at once, and not warning (at this stage - we can add a warning later methinks). Tis rude to warn when things are bleeding edge. >> What do folk think? > > To summarise my view: I think it makes the most sense to use setuptools > inspired section names, and teach d2to1 about them, while also having pip > understand the existing PEP 345 defined section name. Roughly done; we're pending Jason's input and buy-in ATM on the pip PR :) -Rob -- Robert Collins <[email protected]> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
