On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> Donald, Nathaniel, and I have finished our proposed PEP for specifying a >> projects' build dependencies. The PEP is being kept at >> https://github.com/brettcannon/build-deps-pep, so if you find spelling >> mistakes and grammatical errors please feel free to send a PR to fix them. > > Thanks Brett! > >> The only open issue in the PEP at the moment is the bikeshedding topic of >> what to name the sub-section containing the requirements: `[package.build]` >> or `[package.build-system]` (we couldn't reach consensus among the three of >> us on this). > > To maybe help nudge initial bikeshedding on this in useful directions, > the main arguments (IIUC) were: > > In favor of "build-system": setup.py is used for more than just the > strict "build" (source tree/sdist -> wheel) phase. For example, > setup.py is also used to do VCS checkout -> sdist. And it seems likely > that the new build system abstraction thing will grow similar > capabilities at some point. So calling the section just "build" might > be misleading. > > In favor of "build": it's just shorter and reads better. > > Maybe there's a third option that's even better -- [package.automation] ? > > Maybe it doesn't matter that much :-)
I think "build-system" is more descriptive and the more descriptive we can be, the better. (Think of choosing descriptive method and attribute names as well as variables.) _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
