On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:21 PM Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
> On November 1, 2015 at 6:45:16 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > However, I also think there's one refinement we can make that > > lets us > > drop the need for a copy-and-paste "setup.py", *without* needing > > to > > define a programmatic build system API: let setup.cfg define > > a module > > name to invoke with "python -m " instead of running > > "setup.py”. > > I think we should wait on this. We can always add it later, we can’t > (easily) remove it. Defining the ``setup.py`` interface like I did for the > /simple/ interface has benefits even completely removed from the goal of > supporting alternative build systems. Once we get the details sorted out > for how it affects the world of packaging to sanely allow alternative build > systems, then we can figure out what it would look like to allow invocation > without a setup.py script. > > Defining a brand new interface is a lot harder than defining the existing > interface. One problem with setup.py is that pip doesn't like it when egg_info produces a dist-info directory. Is it impossible to define setup.py dist-info as "write current-format wheel metadata to a target directory"? Or we could just standardize the egg-info requires.txt. A plain text list of requirements, one per line, needing no extras or markers is all that pip needs at this phase. It doesn't even mind if you put that into a .dist-info directory in the target folder.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
