On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:22 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > This sounds fine to me, and I prefer a 2b approach.
I also prefer option 2 (and specifically 2b but like you say, 2a vs 2b isn't something the PEP cares about), just because it's the simplest possible approach: we always act the same when build-system.requires is missing, regardless of why it's missing. And it's the same logic as we use to handle a missing build-system.build-backend. It doesn't matter that much though. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone's going to create an empty [build-system] section just because they can... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org -- 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/5E6O2PKSQEAK232INZLTOJESOJDFYHKK/
