If the entire idea of copying out-of-tree is to work around setuptools deficiencies, then perhaps it would be a better idea to push this onto the setuptools build backend rather than bring these problems into PEP 517?
2017-08-24 10:32 GMT-05:00 xoviat <xov...@gmail.com>: > May I ask what is wrong *in principle* with the setuptools "build" folder > (other than the fact that it does not contain all tree changes)? > > 2017-08-24 10:27 GMT-05:00 xoviat <xov...@gmail.com>: > >> That is actually the first time that build_dir makes sense to me now. >> Thank you. >> >> 2017-08-24 10:24 GMT-05:00 Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com>: >> >>> On 24 August 2017 at 16:20, xoviat <xov...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> I *do* care about telling backends we don't want "different >>> > results from those that would be obtained by exporting an sdist >>> > first". >>> > >>> > I completely agree with this statement, but I don't believe that it >>> can or >>> > should be accomplished with this parameter. Let me just quote the >>> process >>> > that I proposed: >>> > >>> > >>> >> Proposed process: >>> > - Frontend copies source tree to temporary directory >>> >>> That step's the problem. If the frontend does that it can potentially >>> be copying a lot of unneeded stuff (VCS history, for example). We >>> tried that with pip and it was a major issue. That problem is the >>> *whole point* of all the discussions about the various proposals that >>> ended up with build_tree. >>> >>> > - Frontend invokes build-sdist to build an sdist >>> > - Frontend extracts sdist to new temporary directory >>> > - Frontend reloads backend from sdist directory and invokes build-wheel >>> >>> Paul >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
