On 10 February 2016 at 20:53, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > We don't have to solve the whole "sdist 2.0" issue right now. Simply > saying that in order to publish pypa.json-based source trees you need > to zip up the source directory, name the file "project-version.zip" > and upload to PyPI, would be sufficient as a short-term answer > (assuming that this *would* be a viable "source file" that pip could > use - and I must be clear that I *haven't checked this*!!!) until > something like Nathaniel's source distribution proposal, or a > full-blown sdist-2.0 spec, is available. We'd need to support whatever > stopgap proposal we recommend for backward compatibility in those new > proposals, but that's a necessary cost of not wanting to delay the > current PEP on those other ones.
One of the reasons I went ahead and created the specifications page at https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/ was to let us tweak interoperability requirements as needed, without wasting people's time with excessive PEP wrangling by requiring a separate PEP for each interface affected by a proposal. In this case, the build system abstraction PEP should propose some additional text for https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/#source-distribution-format defining how to publish source archives containing a pypa.json file and the setup.py shim. At that point, it will effectively become the spec for sdist 1.0, since that's never previously been officially defined. The key difference from setuptools is that the setup.py shim will be a standard one that flit (and other source archive creation tools) can inject when building the sdist, rather than needing to be a custom file stored in each project's source repository. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
