On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 13:23, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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*!!!) > This is exactly what pip itself does right now for "pip install .", so clearly it is viable. 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. > The setup.py shim should be optional right? If a package author decides to not care about older pip versions, then the shim isn't needed. Ralf
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
