On 2017-08-28 17:48:40 + (+), Daniel Holth wrote:
> Imo PBR is entirely a setuptools creature, without special
> concerns to operate in pep517 land. If I were them I'd rewrite it
> to not require setup.py and call that pbr2.
[...]
While it's true that PBR relies on setuptools entrypoints
Imo PBR is entirely a setuptools creature, without special concerns to
operate in pep517 land. If I were them I'd rewrite it to not require
setup.py and call that pbr2.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 12:44 Chris Barker wrote:
> I've thought for ages that we could transition to a
I've thought for ages that we could transition to a more sane system by
convention:
"your setup.py, after being imported, will have a "setup_params" attribute
that is a dict that can be passed to setup()."
So tools that want metadata, etc. without actually running an install could
do;
import
On 2017-08-28 13:05:07 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Güttler wrote:
[...]
> Are there PBR/distutils2 hackers on this list here?
>
> If yes: Do you support this pep?
>
> If no: where can you meet PBR/distutils2 hackers?
See:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-August/031315.html
--
Am 25.08.2017 um 15:00 schrieb Paul Moore:
>
> One thought - are the PBR and/or distutils2 teams looking at providing
> PEP 517 support? Assuming they are, have they had a change to review
> the PEP to ensure it suits their needs? And if they aren't, what is it
> about the PEP that makes them