On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 07:09 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > So heres a different idea that is a bit more ambitious but that I think > is a better overall idea. Let entrypoints be a setuptools thing, and lets > define some key lifecycle hooks during the installation of a package and > some mechanism in the metadata to let other tools subscribe to those > hooks.
I'd like to document the existing mechanism as previously suggested. Not least because I've already written the PR ;-). I don't think this needs to be controversial. They are a de-facto packaging standard, whether or not that's theoretically necessary. There's more than one tool that can create them (setuptools, flit), and more than one that can consume them (pkg_resources, entrypoints). Lots of packages use them, and they're not going anywhere soon. Describing the format properly seems like a clear win. For caching, I'm happy enough to work on a more general PEP to define packaging hooks, so long as that isn't going to be as long a discussion as PEP 517. Daniel: > How long does pkg_resources take to import for you folks? About 0.5s on my laptop with an SSD, about 5s on a machine with a spinning hard drive. This is simulating a cold start on both; it's much quicker once the OS caches it in memory. Thomas _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
