On 31 March 2015 at 17:10, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 March 2015 at 08:04, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30 March 2015 at 16:56, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >>> Honestly, I don’t think that setup.py as a development interface is that >>> bad. It gets really bad when we start sticking it inside of a sdist and >>> using that as part of the installation metadata. >>> >>> It’s not unusual for me to want (or need) to do something a little bit >>> different in a project, or something that the original authors didn’t >>> quite intend to do. This is perfectly valid and fine inside of a file >>> that only ever gets executed on a developer machine. However it *needs* >>> to be “compiled” down to a static file when creating a sdist. >> >> Hmm, I don't think I'd ever really understood the distinction between >> "development setup" and "sdist" that clearly. I take your point, it's >> the sdist level that we want to avoid executable metadata formats in. > > Thinking some more about that, my confusion is probably in part > because pip doesn't distinguish between a "development directory" and > a sdist at the moment. For both, it runs "setup.py > bdist_wheel/install". So I guess work on a new sdist format would have > to include pip learning to distinguish between a sdist and a working > directory, and installing (or building wheels from) the two things > differently.
Yep, the current PEP 426 draft suggests that sdists should grow a "dist-info" directory (akin to wheel files and installed packages), while development directories would continue to lack any of the generated metadata. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
