Hello, I would vote for option 2, again in the spirit of explicit better than implicit (as maintainer of tox). pip should raise an error I think and fail the build.
That being said, we don't want to start breaking existing packages. So what about doing a release of pip that raises a warning first, this gives a grace period of 1 month for people to fix their packages? And then switch over to breaking. Bernat On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:34 PM Pradyun Gedam <pradyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey everyone! > > In PEP 518, it is not clearly specified how a project that has a > pyproject.toml > file but has no build-system.requires should be treated (i.e. build-system > table). > > In pip 10, such a pyproject.toml file was allowed and built with > setuptools > and wheel, which has resulted in a lot of projects making releases that > assumed > that such a pyproject.toml file is valid and they use setuptools and wheel. > I understand that at least pytest, towncrier and Twisted might have done > so. > This happened since these projects have included configuration for some > tool in > pyproject.toml (some of which use only pyproject.toml for configuration -- > black, towncrier). > > There's a little bit of subtlety here, in pip 10's implementation: adding a > pyproject.toml file enables a new code path that does the build in > isolation > (in preparation for PEP 517; it's a good idea on it's own too) with only > the > build-system.requires packages available. When the build-system.requires > key > is missing, pip falls back to assuming it should be ["setuptools", > "wheel"]. > The in-development version of pip currently prints warnings when the key is > not specified -- along the lines of "build-system.requires is missing" + > "A future version of pip will reject pyproject.toml files that do not > comply > with PEP 518." and falls back to legacy behavior. > > Basically, pip 10 has a distinction between a missing pyproject.toml and > build-system.requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"] and the PEP doesn't. > However, > the PEP's precise wording here would help inform the debate about how pip > should behave in this edge case. > > I can think of at least 2 options for behavior when build-system.requires > is > missing: > > 1. Consider a missing build-system.requires equivalent to either a missing > pyproject.toml or build-system.requires = ["setuptools", "wheel"]. > > 2. Making the build-system table mandatory in pyproject.toml. > > I personally think (2) would be fine -- "Explicit is better than implicit." > > It'll be easy to detect and error out in this case, in a way that it's > possible > to provide meaningful information to the user about what to do here. > However, > this does mean that some existing releases of projects become > not-installable, > which is concerning; I do think the benefits outweigh the costs though. > > Thoughts on this? > > Cheers, > Pradyun > > -- > Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/7A4QHWCHR54TSIO2DQZUVNZHZS6ZPBLY/ >
-- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/TNSKKGT3IJ5K6EFQWBGDI55VJARTIG7K/
