On Wed, 11 May 2016 at 16:01 Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > [...] > > the file is for the project, not just the package(s) the project > > contains ("package" is an overloaded term and I don't want to contribute > to > > that with the filename; I can live with the build details being in > relation > > to a package in the project and thus named [package], but other things > that > > may end up in this file might not relate to any package in the project). > > We went back and forth on the overloaded "package" name a bit while > drafting too, and eventually just gave up and went ahead because it's > not that important. > > To me this feels similar to situations I've encountered in the past, > where I've spent a bunch of time debating between two things, and it > turned out that the reason we couldn't agree was because both > proposals were wrong and a third solution was much better :-). > > I still don't think the [package] name part is worth arguing about > much, but throwing this out there in case it turns out to be that > "third way" that suddenly makes everyone go "a-ha!": > > If you think about it, really the stuff in [package.build-system] is > there to tell pip how to run the build system. It's associated with > building the project/package, sure, but that's not what makes it > special -- everything that goes in this file will be associated with > building or developing the project/package: [tool.flit], > [tool.coverage], [tool.pytest], [tool.tox], whatever. The build-system > stuff could easily and comfortably have gone into > [tool.pip.build-system] instead... *except* that we don't want it to > be specific to pip, we want it to be a piece of shared/common > configuration that's defined by a shared process (PEPs) and used by > *multiple* tools. That's why it doesn't belong in [tool.pip]. > > Or another way to put it, contrasting [tool.*] versus [package.*] is > kinda weird, because those categories aren't actually contradictory -- > it's like having categories [red] versus [square]. > > So, proposal: maybe we should rename the [package] namespace to > something that reflects what distinguishes it from [tool], like: > > [standard.build-system] > > or > > [common.build-system] > > or > > [shared.build-system] > > or
[base.build-system] or [super.build-system] I'm +1 on base, super, or common, +0 on standard, -0 on shared.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig