Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-09-02 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 2 September 2016 at 13:30, Antony Lee wrote: >> Similarly, it wouldn't astonish me if we eventually see an emergent >> practice of people writing pyproject.toml.in files for complex >> projects, in order to move some particular forms of complexity away >> from build time

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-09-01 Thread Antony Lee
> > Similarly, it wouldn't astonish me if we eventually see an emergent > practice of people writing pyproject.toml.in files for complex > projects, in order to move some particular forms of complexity away > from build time and towards development time - this would be a similar > practice to

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 31 August 2016 at 07:04, Daniel Holth wrote: > In other systems I've worked on I sometimes have make-like rules that > automatically rebuild static metadata depending on other files, like copying > a version number between a .json and an .xml file - reprogramming the system >

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Daniel Holth
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:06 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: > > name, version, packages, install_requires, extras_require, description, > license, classifiers, keywords, author, url, entry_points. > > > Out of

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Aug 30, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: > > name, version, packages, install_requires, extras_require, description, > license, classifiers, keywords, author, url, entry_points. Out of these, a number of them are regularly dynamic for people’s setup.py as is. The

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Daniel Holth
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:13 PM Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 05:51 PM, Antony Lee wrote: > > I am not really a fan of PEP518 in general. Basically, the idea of > setup.py is that declarative languages are not sufficient to express a > build system (and

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Thomas Kluyver
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 05:51 PM, Antony Lee wrote: > I am not really a fan of PEP518 in general. Basically, the idea of > setup.py is that declarative languages are not sufficient to express a > build system (and AFAICT this is always going to be the case for > expressing, say, compiler flags

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Antony Lee
2016-08-30 5:08 GMT-07:00 Erik Bray : > I mean this sort of already exists but it's spelled: > > from setuptools import Distribution > Distribution({'setup_requires': ['numpy']) > > Granted it's non-obvious and doesn't have the needed_for flag, which I > like. It's not

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Daniel Holth
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:09 AM Erik Bray wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Antony Lee wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The `setup_requires` option to `setup()` is well-known to suffer from > > multiple issues. Most importantly, as it is a

Re: [Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-30 Thread Erik Bray
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Antony Lee wrote: > Hi all, > > The `setup_requires` option to `setup()` is well-known to suffer from > multiple issues. Most importantly, as it is a keyword argument to > `setup()`, it appears too late for modules that may need to be

[Distutils] setup_requires: the obvious option(?)

2016-08-29 Thread Antony Lee
Hi all, The `setup_requires` option to `setup()` is well-known to suffer from multiple issues. Most importantly, as it is a keyword argument to `setup()`, it appears too late for modules that may need to be imported for the build to occur (e.g., Cython, for which support must explicitly provided