> Not really (and I had missed this post as well). As I believe you've
> seen, I have some half developed thoughts along these lines at
>
> http://python-notes.boredomandlaziness.org/en/latest/pep_ideas/core_packaging_api.html
> ,
> but the whole concept is fairly nebulous.
>
>
your article is basi
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Marcus Smith wrote:
>
>> What if pip did not depend on setuptools or distutils and the stdlib
>> did not include distutils or any other build system? Instead, the
>> installer can only install binary packages, and build systems do not
>> install but only build binar
> What if pip did not depend on setuptools or distutils and the stdlib
> did not include distutils or any other build system? Instead, the
> installer can only install binary packages, and build systems do not
> install but only build binary packages.
>
> A very simple meta-build system "mebs" is u
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:21 PM, PJ Eby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
>> An installer downloads an sdist. For each installed build plugin,
>> .recognize(dir) is called. The first plugin to return True is used.
>
> Why not just have a standard bit of metadata in an
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> An installer downloads an sdist. For each installed build plugin,
> .recognize(dir) is called. The first plugin to return True is used.
Why not just have a standard bit of metadata in an sdist that tells
the installer what builder(s) needs t
or, removing distutils without replacing it.
** not an actual project **
Proposing mebs, the meta-build system.
What if pip did not depend on setuptools or distutils and the stdlib
did not include distutils or any other build system? Instead, the
installer can only install binary packages, and b
