Re: [Distutils] Proposal: moving PyPA projects to pydoctheme

2017-05-25 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Jon Wayne Parrott via Distutils-SIG wrote: > o/ Hello everyone, > I've been working on the Packaging User Guide and various discussions have > come up about the theme > (https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues/304) as

[Distutils] Proposal: moving PyPA projects to pydoctheme

2017-05-25 Thread Jon Wayne Parrott via Distutils-SIG
o/ Hello everyone, I've been working on the Packaging User Guide and various discussions have come up about the theme ( https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues/304) as well as the common brand for PyPA projects ( https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues/62).

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Steve Dower
On 25May2017 0756, Paul Moore wrote: On 25 May 2017 at 15:38, Nick Coghlan wrote: So I'm inclined to accept the encoding amendment, and then provisionally accept the overall PEP pending implementation in pip. Me too. (Assuming I understand Steve's comments on backends,

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Paul Moore
On 25 May 2017 at 15:38, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Seeing it like this pushes me from "Eh, maybe?" to "No, definitely not" :) Agreed. Given that it's stated as optional for frontends to support it, I'd be arguing against pip bothering (as it seems like too much complexity) - so

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 26 May 2017 at 00:04, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> I'd be concerned here that we risk making the frontend UI a lot more >> complex for little actual benefit. I'd rather we stick with the >> current model, where a backend

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Thomas Kluyver
On Thu, May 25, 2017, at 02:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > I'd be concerned here that we risk making the frontend UI a lot more > complex for little actual benefit. I'd rather we stick with the > current model, where a backend just has some output to pass through to > the frontend. Let's get a

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Paul Moore
On 25 May 2017 at 13:26, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 24 May 2017 at 20:29, Thomas Kluyver wrote: >> Nick: >>> That's actually pretty similar to the way tools like mock (the chroot >>> based RPM builder) work. That way, build backends could choose >>>

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Wayne Werner
FWIW, I was just reading an article about writing libraries to just operate on streams and totally ignore stdout/stdin/file io, and just leave the IO to something else. It may be a good idea to define the spec as purely operating on byte and text streams, then leave where those streams go as an

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517 - specifying build system in pyproject.toml

2017-05-25 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 24 May 2017 at 20:29, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > Nick: >> That's actually pretty similar to the way tools like mock (the chroot >> based RPM builder) work. That way, build backends could choose >> between: >> >> - use pipes to stream output from the tools they call, deal