Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 18 February 2016 at 13:48, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Yes, twine is a good, concrete example. > > I believe tools like pyp2rpm, conda skeleton, py2dsc and fpm also rely on > that static sdist metadata (I'm not 100% sure on that, but it would make > sense for them to do so).

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

Yes PKG-INFO is reasonably useful and easy to hand-edit. It would be easy to maintain. If you were doing it manually the only thing you would need to update frequently would be the version number. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:48 AM Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 18 February 2016 at

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 18 February 2016 at 07:30, Paul Moore wrote: > On 17 February 2016 at 21:01, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2016 4:44 AM, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > >> > > [...] > >> You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > [1] One downsides of managing PEPs as PRs against the packaging specs > is that there is no easy quotable term to refer to them by - we could, > and probably should, use the PR number. And as a consequence, it's > hard to

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 17 February 2016 at 22:58, Robert Collins wrote: >> The latter option is far easier (we're basically almost there) but it >> will *not* suit build tools that can't (or won't) generate a sdist >> that conforms to PEP 314 (i.e., contains PKG-INFO). > > I still don't

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:12:41PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 17 February 2016 at 20:13, Marius Gedminas wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:10:43PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > >> diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst b/build-system-abstraction.rst > >> index

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 18 February 2016 at 01:44, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> Currently, however, people using distutils can create sdists using >> "setup.py sdist". For other tools, this PEP does not specify how a >> sdist

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 17 February 2016 at 20:13, Marius Gedminas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:10:43PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: >> diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst b/build-system-abstraction.rst >> index a6e4712..56464f1 100644 >> --- a/build-system-abstraction.rst >> +++

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 18 February 2016 at 10:30, Paul Moore wrote: > I think the key point here is that twine expects a *sdist*, that is, > an archive, containing a PKG-INFO file conforming to the Metadata 1.1 > spec. See PEP 314. (Note, I only just read PEP 314 myself - it's as > much news to

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 17 February 2016 at 21:01, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Feb 17, 2016 4:44 AM, "Donald Stufft" wrote: >> > [...] >> You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a thing people >> should >> do (and I agree!) but that currently relies on having

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On Feb 17, 2016 4:44 AM, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > [...] > You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a thing people should > do (and I agree!) but that currently relies on having static metadata inside of > the sdist that twine can parse, static metadata that

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 17 February 2016 at 12:44, Donald Stufft wrote: >> You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a thing people >> should >> do (and I agree!) but that currently relies on having static

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 17 February 2016 at 12:44, Donald Stufft wrote: > You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a thing people > should > do (and I agree!) but that currently relies on having static metadata inside > of > the sdist that twine can parse, static metadata that

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Currently, however, people using distutils can create sdists using > "setup.py sdist". For other tools, this PEP does not specify how a > sdist should be created, but it does imply that it is sufficient to > make an

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 16 February 2016 at 22:49, Robert Collins wrote: > +Being able to create new sdists from existing source trees isn't a thing pip > +does today, and while there is a PR to do that as part of building from > +source, it is contentious and lacks consensus. Rather than

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:10:43PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst b/build-system-abstraction.rst > index a6e4712..56464f1 100644 > --- a/build-system-abstraction.rst > +++ b/build-system-abstraction.rst > @@ -68,12 +68,15 @@ modelled on pip's existing use

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 16 February 2016 at 22:40, Paul Moore wrote: > On 16 February 2016 at 03:10, Robert Collins > wrote: >> -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutron configuration file for pip and other >> +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file

Re: [Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

On 16 February 2016 at 03:10, Robert Collins wrote: > -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutron configuration file for pip and other > +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file for pip and other Aw, I was looking forward to controlling my nuclear power

[Distutils] abstract build system PEP update

I've just pushed this up. - provide space for config of other things in pypa.json via convention - document PATH as a reliable variable - capture the sdist discussion - remove --root from develop: it isn't needed after discussion on IRC. -Rob diff --git a/build-system-abstraction.rst