Just this morning, Paul said the following: 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.
I took that to mean that we were trusting the backend to do the right thing. And most people agreed with that. I don't personally care but there does seem to be some miscommunication here. On Aug 24, 2017 11:24 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:17 PM, xoviat <xov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm *not* OK with banning in-tree builds in the spec, since that's > > > both unnecessary and unenforceable > > > > Well then either we can trust the backend or we cannot. If we can, then > this > > is both necessary and enforceable. If not, then we're back to pip copying > > files. You can't make and argument that it's okay to trust build_sdist > but > > not build_wheel. > > I think at this point everyone has made their peace with the pip > developers' decision that they want to keep copying files -- at least > for now -- and that's just how it's going to be. This email has a more > detailed discussion of the options, their "threat model", and the > tradeoffs: > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-July/031020.html > > I can see an argument for adding language saying that build_sdist > SHOULD avoid modifying the source tree if possible, and MAY write > scratch files to the sdist_directory. > > -n > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
