On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> setup.py as implemented with distutils/setuptools has a bit of a >> Goldilocks problem: it's just right for a medium-complexity project >> but when your project is very simple it's too hard, and when you get >> to the point where you are trying to extend distutils by writing a >> 10,000 line extension, yikes. So it's fantastic to be able to just >> avoid distutils entirely if it isn't the right size for your project. >> This example, flit, does not invoke any code from distutils, >> setuptools or bdist_wheel to do its thing. >> >> A source release could just be an archive of the repository. >> > > An archive of the repository is not the same thing as a source release. > > Honestly, most of my setup.py’s look basically the same as a flit ini > file, just inside of python instead of ini. For example, I’m not sure > how something like https://github.com/pypa/packaging/blob/master/setup.py > or https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/blob/master/setup.py or > https://github.com/pypa/twine/blob/master/setup.py or > https://github.com/pypa/readme/blob/master/setup.py would be improved by > moving it to a ini file instead of a python file. > > The current toolchain absolutely has some problems, but I’m not convinced > that shuffling around the same data into different locations is the answer > to those problems.
The way to solve the problems is to allow anyone to try by providing good hooks that do not require extending distutils. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
