> On Aug 19, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19 August 2016 at 16:14, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> Not sure if we’ll be able to back port it to 2.7 itself, but it’s a trivial >> change to make inside of setuptools as well. Here’s a PR to setuptools that >> will adjust the default: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/748. > > Hmm. So the question becomes, do we care about supporting users > building sdists without setuptools? It's not like this is a scenario > controlled by pip, which auto-injects setuptools. So I guess we'd need > to also publicise the --formats=gztar flag (at > https://packaging.python.org/distributing/#source-distributions if > nowhere else). > > So, the plan becomes: > > 1. Change Python 3.6 to default to .tar.gz on Windows > 2. Change setuptoos to default to .tar.gz, to catch users of older versions > 3. Document how to create a source distribution as "python setup.py > sdist (add the --formats=gztar flag if you're on Windows and using a > Python older than 3.6 and not using setuptools)" in the PUG > 4. Update https://docs.python.org/3/distutils/sourcedist.html for 3.6 > to note the change in default. > > For (3) soften the laboured conditional comment as much as you like, > but I think we need something to help people who don't understand > what's going on. For (1) and (4), maybe we don't target 3.6 (given > setuptools, it's not urgent) but I think we should change the core, if > only to avoid surprises for people who don't include setuptools in > their setup.py (maybe relying on pip injecting it for things like > wheel builds), and so that distutils isn't (in effect) deliberately > wrong going forward.
FWIW, they can also drop a setup.cfg in their project too that looks like: https://bpaste.net/show/90dd1280eba6 and then forget about it, which makes it somewhat less painful, since they won’t have to remember to do it on a per project basis past the first time. I believe that can also be put in ~/.pydistutils.cfg (or w/e that file is again…) to change the default on a per user basis. >> While I think it’s OK to allow .zip in the interim, I do think we should be >> trying to move towards only allowing a single format. > > Your arguments are compelling, I have no problem with the conclusion - > we just need a little more thought on the transition. > Sure! I have some other things to do today, but I’ll try and figure out something a bit more fleshed out for the transition given this new (to me) information. — Donald Stufft _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig