On 12 May 2016 at 11:33, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > I don't really think of it as package vs tool, I think of it as an implicit > <standard stuff> vs an explicit <third party stuff>. I think it makes the > file > uglier to have the <standard stuff> explicit, particularly since I think the > example should really be something like: > > [standard.package.build-system] > requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"] > > [tool.flake8] > ... > > Because the value of the [package] namespace isn't that it separates us from > the [tool] namespace (we could get that easily without it), but that it > separates us from *other*, non packaging related but "standard" stuff that > might be added in the future.
In that case though: 1. semantics-version isn't about the package, it's about the pyproject.toml file itself. 2. build-system feels like it could readily be top level as well, regardless of what other sections we added later That would make the example in the PEP =============== semantics-version = 1 # Optional; defaults to 1. [build-system] requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"] # PEP 508 specifications. =============== So I'm not clear on what the [package] namespace is buying us over just having [build-system] as a top level namespace (it would be different with a section name of "build" - for that, [package.build] reads nicely, and you can mostly ignore that it creates a nested namespace TOML. As noted elsewhere, I don't like "build" though - we're not configuring the build, we're specifying what's needed to run the build system in the first place). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
