Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Paul Moore
On 10 June 2017 at 04:32, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > While I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, my current thinking is > that these concerns could be suitably addressed by making the > following amendments: > > 1. Move all artifact naming responsibilities to the frontend. All > backend hooks would

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Thomas Kluyver
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017, at 04:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > 1. Move all artifact naming responsibilities to the frontend. All > backend hooks would just write files in the defined format into the > directory supplied by the frontend (and those directories would have > no defined naming scheme - they'r

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 10 June 2017 at 19:12, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017, at 04:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> 1. Move all artifact naming responsibilities to the frontend. All >> backend hooks would just write files in the defined format into the >> directory supplied by the frontend (and those dire

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Jun 10, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > The fact this is also true for both "setup.py bdist_wheel" and for > "enscons" would then be the strongest argument in favour of keeping > the current "build_wheel" API: existing backends are already building > wheels for publication direct

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 11 June 2017 at 02:59, Donald Stufft wrote: > We have a few possible cases where the build-the-wheel backend is going to > be called: > > 1) We’re creating a wheel ahead of time to publish somewhere. > 2) We’re creating a wheel JIT that we’re going to cache. > 3) We’re creating a wheel JIT that

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Paul Moore
On 10 June 2017 at 18:14, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Keeping it in the backend doesn’t really buy us much of anything, except >> that a handful of backend authors don’t have to make relatively minor >> adjustments to their code base. In a vacuum I can’t see any compelling >> reason to have the backend

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Open questions around artifact export directories

2017-06-10 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Jun 10, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 10 June 2017 at 18:14, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> Keeping it in the backend doesn’t really buy us much of anything, except >>> that a handful of backend authors don’t have to make relatively minor >>> adjustments to their code base. In a vacu