Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

On 23 August 2017 at 05:24, xoviat wrote: > The question that I have is: how does flit address this issue? Does flit > require external dependencies to bootstrap itself? It does, but those dependencies currently use setuptools as their packaging system rather than flit.

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

The OP was about "bootstrapping setuptools." If, as Leonardo said, we only isolate on the first level (requirements from install_requires or user will be isolated but requirements from build_requires will share the same environment as the invoker of build_requires if they are not wheels), then

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

Oh, gawd. From now on, someone will have to say buildout 3 times before I appear. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:06 PM, xoviat wrote: > So are we going for a "primarily isolation" approach then where builds are > only isolated on the first level, but subsequent levels share the

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

So are we going for a "primarily isolation" approach then where builds are only isolated on the first level, but subsequent levels share the same build environment? 2017-08-22 10:23 GMT-05:00 Jim Fulton : > I didn't mention (nor do I recall anyone mentioning) venvs. > > Jim

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

I didn't mention (nor do I recall anyone mentioning) venvs. Jim On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Matt Joyce wrote: > venvs within venvs... terrifying concept. > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

venvs within venvs... terrifying concept. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Holth wrote: > >> Isn't this a special case of needing . on sys.path when building a >> package? Then the same

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Daniel Holth wrote: > Isn't this a special case of needing . on sys.path when building a > package? Then the same version of setuptools that is being packaged builds > itself. > No. The issue for us it wasn't setuptools itself, but it's

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

Hi, On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:39 PM, xoviat wrote: > This statement comes from something that Donald said: >> >> > The unvendoring means that setuptools and the project code are now >> competing over who gets to define what an acceptable version is for these >> libraries to be

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

Isn't this a special case of needing . on sys.path when building a package? Then the same version of setuptools that is being packaged builds itself. I've experimented with a different kind of bootstrapping where pip installs setuptools on demand when the first setuptools requiring package is

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Bootstrapping setuptools

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:39 PM, xoviat wrote: > This statement comes from something that Donald said: > > > The unvendoring means that setuptools and the project code are now > competing over who gets to define what an acceptable version is for these > libraries to be