On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And maybe it's good to keep "new style" configuration clearly separate. > > Part of my motivation for suggesting re-using setup.cfg is the > proliferation of packaging related config sprawl in project root > directories - setup.py won't be going anywhere any time soon for most > projects, some folks already have a setup.cfg (e.g. to specify > universal wheel creation), and there's also MANIFEST.in to control > sdist generation. yeah -- ugly, but will one more file make a difference? now that I think about it -- IIUC the goals here, we want to separate packaging from building -- I'd argue that setuup.cfg is about building -- we really should keep the package configuration separate. Some day, some how, we hoping to have a new (or multiple build systems) they won't use setup.cfg to configure the build. So we probably shouldn't marry ourselves to setup.cfg for package configuration. The other issue is social -- if we stick with setup.cfg, we are implying that this is all about tweaking distutils/setuptools, not doing something different -- seemingly keeping the mingling of building and packaging forevermore.... But this isn't that big a deal -- enough bike-shedding, time to make a declaration. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
