> For the same reason you would ever ask for incremental builds, to more quickly iterate while hacking, imagining that you are using the PEP 517 interface to develop, perhaps to have a uniform interface to patch something when you are not familiar with exactly the build system it uses.
And so I reiterate: > I understand that, but what I disagree with is modifying build_wheel to make up for a lack of consensus on editable installs. I don't think the build_wheel hook should be used for iteration or development, because the intended purpose is for production. And I don't think we should even consider *any* specific deficiencies of setuptools or wheel when designing a specification. 2017-08-24 12:20 GMT-05:00 Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:34 PM Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017, at 05:26 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: >> >> by including the build_dir parameter, a nearly universal build system >> concept, pip gets an elegant way to ask for either a clean or unclean build. >> >> >> Is there a reason to ask for an 'unclean' build, though? There may be a >> performance optimisation from reusing cached data, >> > > For the same reason you would ever ask for incremental builds, to more > quickly iterate while hacking, imagining that you are using the PEP 517 > interface to develop, perhaps to have a uniform interface to patch > something when you are not familiar with exactly the build system it uses. > > >> but building in a separate directory doesn't preclude caching >> intermediates somewhere else. >> > > The argument is necessarily a hint to the build system? If it works it can > do whatever. > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
