On 27 June 2018 at 22:09, Pradyun Gedam <pradyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:15 PM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 27 June 2018 at 15:59, Pradyun Gedam <pradyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Assuming we are going to disallow missing build-requires, >> > I think a better way for this would be to allow a user to override >> > build-requires on a per-package basis. It'd be a more verbose >> > and also clearer about which packages are needing some sort >> > of work-around to install, pushing packages to just directly >> > specify build-requires in future releases. [...] >> 1. Project has pyproject.toml with build-system.requires specified. No >> problem, full PEP 518 behaviour (and pip uses build isolation). >> 2. Project has pyproject.toml but no build-system.requires, Illegal, >> confirmed by this discussion, so terminate with an error (pip currenly >> warns, but will move to an error after a deprecation period). >> 3. Project has no pyproject.toml. Old-style project, PEP 518 says that >> the default is [setuptools, wheel]. Pip will actually use the legacy >> (no build isolation) code path, which is a backward compatibility >> choice. I'm not actually sure PEP 518 needs to even comment on this >> case, as such projects clearly don't conform to that PEP and tools >> like pip will of necessity have to handle them as "legacy". >> >> The only case where I can see your "per-package overrides" fitting in >> would be (3), which is outside the scope of PEP 518 and so really a >> pip-only issue. > > I am suggesting it for (2). But Brett clearly stated that he views PEP 518 as stating that the build-system.requires key in pyproject.toml is *not* optional. And I think that's the correct reading of the PEP. Projects that want to use pyproject.toml for tool settings can, and should, just set build-system.requires (presumably to ['setuptools', 'wheel'] as they obviously don't need a non-default value). > I'll elaborate on the tracker. OK. But I'm going to take the view that having explicitly requested clarification on distutils-sig, if we want to do anything other than reject a pyproject.toml with a missing build-system.requires as invalid, we need to first of all get the PEP changed. And for that we'll have to have a good use case to justify the change. Personally, I don't see the value. >> > This is already a feature request for pip for a different use case >> > and I think it's a reasonable request. >> >> What's the issue number? I don't recall seeing anything like this. > > https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/4582 I found that discussion confusing at the time, and on rereading I don't think my view has changed :-( I'm going to be offline for a week or two, but if you do raise a tracker item, I'll pick it up once I return. Paul -- 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/BR7R5EG5PXGYOCI2MPLYBZWNYFX36SWE/
