Re: [Distutils] PBR/distutils2 with pep517 Support Was: Conditionless setup.py

2017-08-28 Thread Jeremy Stanley
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

Re: [Distutils] PBR/distutils2 with pep517 Support Was: Conditionless setup.py

2017-08-28 Thread Daniel Holth
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

Re: [Distutils] PBR/distutils2 with pep517 Support Was: Conditionless setup.py

2017-08-28 Thread Chris Barker
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

Re: [Distutils] PBR/distutils2 with pep517 Support Was: Conditionless setup.py

2017-08-28 Thread Jeremy Stanley
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 --

[Distutils] PBR/distutils2 with pep517 Support Was: Conditionless setup.py

2017-08-28 Thread Thomas Güttler
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