I will update the PEP and add you as a reviewer, Paul (might not get to it until Friday, though).
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 02:23 Paul Moore, <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The discussion on this appears to have died down. > > As far as I can tell, the consensus is essentially: > > 1. It should be legal for pyproject.toml to *not* contain a > [build-system] section. > 2. If a [build-system] section is present, the requires key must be > present. > > Tools should behave as follows: > > 1. If [build-system] is present but requires is missing, raise an error. > 2. If [build-system] is missing, they can take one of the following > two approaches: > a) Act as if pyproject.toml is missing altogether > b) Act as if [build-system] is present, with a requires value of > ["setuptools", "wheel"] > > Whether tools act differently in cases 2a and 2b is tool-dependent > (for pip, we would isolate in case 2b but not in case 2a) which is why > the choice is left to individual tools. That makes the > "Thomas/Nathaniel" debate into a tool implementation choice, and both > of the options are allowable from the perspective of the PEP. > > Is everyone OK with this resolution? If so, will someone raise a PR > for PEP 518? I can do that if no-one else can. > > Paul > > PS Following on from > > >> I think it would be helpful for this discussion if we could look at > these > >> bug reports – do does anyone have links? > > > > Good point. I will hunt them out and post here. > > I mentioned this on the pip issue, but the only pip problem which has > been raised with the current behaviour is around cases where the user > disabled PyPI access and doesn't have a local copy of > setuptools/wheel, which means we can't build the isolated environment. > But that's a corner case that is easily resolvable, and I don't think > it needs to affect pip's choice of behaviour (much less what the PEP > says). > > > On 10 July 2018 at 08:03, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10 July 2018 at 05:09, Pradyun Gedam <pradyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:30 AM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Ah, okay. So, isolation is purely an implementation issue, so it doesn't > >> need to come around in this discussion which is about how we should > >> change the PEP. I guess I'm still figuring out where to draw the line > >> between implementation details and the PEP details here since they > >> should/would influence each other both ways. I'll try to be more careful > >> about stuff like this in the future. :) > > > > Not a problem. Isolation is discussed in PEP 517, which is why I was > > getting confused about what was related to the standard and what to > > the implementation. We will need to be careful to review all this once > > we start implementing PEP 517, but for now at least that's a level of > > complexity we don't need in this discussion. > > > > 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/KU5TPNUFYZYZXWTXZJZD66ZOMAD6XXG6/
