On 3 May 2016 at 19:28, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > No, no, Nick's not the blocker. I'm the blocker! (Sorry) > > Donald + Robert + I had a longish conversation about this on IRC a > month ago [1]. I volunteered to summarize back to the mailing list, > and then I flaked -- so I guess this is that belated email :-).
Not a problem - I'm glad my mail prompted some movement, but I completely understand that other things can get in the way. > Here's the tentative conclusions we came to: > > Blocker 1 is figuring out what to do about the sdist format. The > debate is between keeping something that's basically the current > format, versus somehow cleaning it up (e.g. Donald's "source wheel" > ideas). To move forward: > - I'll write up a PEP that attempts to just document/standardize the > current de facto sdist format and send it to the mailing list > (basically: filename convention, PKG-INFO + a list of which fields in > PKG-INFO pypi actually cares about, presence of setup.py), and adds > some sort of optional-defaulting-to-1 SDist-Version (I guess in a file > called SDIST by analogy with WHEEL). And also contains a rationale > section explaining the trade-offs of standardizing this versus > creating a new extension.) > - Donald will make his case for the new extension approach on the mailing list > - We beg Nick to read over both things and make a ruling so we can move on Even though I was one who wanted a properly defined sdist format, I'm inclined to be OK with a "whatever works for now" approach, so I don't see a problem with documenting and tidying up the current de facto standard. If Donald comes up with a good proposal, that's great - but if not, we can always revisit that side of things later. > Blocker 2 is figuring out whether the new pip <-> build system "hook" > interface should be command-line based (like the current draft of PEP > 516) or Python function call based (like the current draft of PEP > 517). It sounds like currently Donald and I are in favor of the python > hooks approach, and Robert is indifferent between them and just wants > to move forward, so we agreed that unless anyone objects we'll drop > the command-line approach and go ahead with refining the Python > function call approach. So... if you want to object then speak up now. Cool. No objections from me. > Then there are a bunch of details to work out about what hooks to > provide exactly and what their semantics should be, but hopefully once > we've settled the two issues above that will be an easier discussion > to have. > > So yeah, basically the next step is for me [2] to write up a spec for > how sdists currently (really) work. [...] > [2] Or if someone else wants to raise their hand and volunteer I > wouldn't object, obviously I am a bit swamped right now :-) I don't want to volunteer to take this on completely, as I'll probably not have the time either, but if I can help in any way (research, proofreading, writing parts of the document) let me know. Thanks for the update! Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
