On 9 July 2018 at 20:27, Pradyun Gedam <pradyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:14 AM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> This suggests that our decision should be based on: if we want to be >> relatively more aggressive about rolling out build isolation, then we >> should key on the existence of pyproject.toml. If we want to be >> relatively more conservative, then we should key on the existence of >> build-system.requires. > > Indeed. I too feel that's what this comes down to. I had a wordier way to > come to this conclusion which I've removed from this mail now. :) > > An important thing here is that being aggressive here let's us piggy-back on > the adoption of tools that use pyproject.toml and I'd say it's a good thing > to have more people using the standard explicitly.
OK. That's basically pip's current behaviour. This discussion is getting fragmented, unfortunately. I've just commented on the pip issue at https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/5416#issuecomment-403616780 as I'm still trying to find the motivating issues behind this discussion. For now I'll point out that PEP 518 doesn't say *anything* about how tools use the information in `pyproject.toml` - there's no mention of build isolation. Unless I missed something - please point it out if I did, The only thing I can find is in PEP 517. So discussions of pip's isolation behaviour are mostly pip-specific implementation details at the moment, and not really relevant to this thread. Once I've collected a bit more information, I'll summarise here. But I think there's only minor changes to PEP 518 needed, and nothing for pip. 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/ADR3K2ML7U4AQ7PKV7NJC6PG7FIN6MN3/
