On 25 August 2017 at 12:14, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > On 2017-08-25 10:50:11 +0100 (+0100), Paul Moore wrote: > [...] >> once PEP 517 is implemented and as flit gains popularity, I fully >> expect more and more projects to use a static data structure for >> their metadata (flit.ini, specifically). > > This has also been possible for years already using either PBR or > distutils2. For example, hundreds of Python packages produced by the > OpenStack community use a branchless boilerplate setup.py which > declares a setup_requires on the pbr package, and then everything > else goes into an INI-formatted setup.cfg file (except for > install_requires which are drawn from requirements.txt instead).
Cool. I'm not that familiar with those tools, but if they enable that sort of use then that's great. I did get the impression that they were for more complex/specialised use cases, though, whereas flit (with PEP 517) is much more about simple configuration for the majority of (pure Python) projects that don't need complex behaviour. But that's mostly about target audiences than capabilities. One thought - are the PBR and/or distutils2 teams looking at providing PEP 517 support? Assuming they are, have they had a change to review the PEP to ensure it suits their needs? And if they aren't, what is it about the PEP that makes them unwilling to do so? Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
