[Distutils] PEP 517: editable installs

I noticed PEP 517 uses a prefix for editable installs. What enscons needs for development install, which is cribbed from setuptools, is to perform a build-in-place and write to a directory that accepts Python .pth files, essentially adding the build-in-place directory to PYTHONPATH. Enscons uses

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

I'm wondering about this one as well. Even when it is not a different interpreter version it could also be a different environment. Who "owns" environment variables like PYTHONHOME and PYTHONPATH? On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Daniel Holth wrote: > Build systems should be

[Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

Build systems should be able to run under a different version of Python than the one that is running 'pip install'. Does PEP 517 have anything to say about that? Then a flit back end could have a small amount of Python 2.7 compatible interface code and create the wheel with Python 3 anyway.

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: editable installs

On Jun 16, 2017 11:59 AM, "Daniel Holth" wrote: I noticed PEP 517 uses a prefix for editable installs. Which part of the pep are you looking at? All I see about editable installs is the note saying that they're deferred to a future pep. -n

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: editable installs

Probably this older version from http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 4:42 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Jun 16, 2017 11:59 AM, "Daniel Holth" wrote: > > I noticed PEP 517 uses a prefix for editable installs. > > > Which part of

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 08:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > I think we should rename get_build_requires to > > > get_build_wheel_requires, and add a get_build_sdist_requires. And the > > > rule would be: > > > > > >

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Thomas Kluyver > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 08:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: I think we should rename get_build_requires

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > I’d probably want to spec this out as ext_{name-on-pypi}_* to remove a > special case on pip in the PEP, to let others do experimentation as well. Sure, like the [tool.*] escape hatch in pyproject.toml. > However this

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: editable installs

Oh, yeah, that's totally an ancient version of the PEP. That sucks. I thought the legacy.python.org URLs were redirecting to python.org now. Probably we should file a bug with the python.org infra team, but I'm not sure where their tracker is. On Jun 16, 2017 1:48 PM, "Daniel Holth"

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

On Jun 16, 2017 12:13 PM, "Daniel Holth" wrote: Build systems should be able to run under a different version of Python than the one that is running 'pip install'. Does PEP 517 have anything to say about that? No, and I don't think it should. At the start of the bootstrap

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > The messy complications come from > prepare_wheel_metadata and get_prepare_wheel_input_files, which isn't > surprising, since those are the two hooks where we're squinting into > our crystal ball to try and guess what will be useful for

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Jun 16, 2017 12:13 PM, "Daniel Holth" wrote: >> Build systems should be able to run under a different version of >> Python than the one that is running 'pip install'. Does PEP 517 have >> anything to say about that?>

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> The messy complications come from >> prepare_wheel_metadata and get_prepare_wheel_input_files, which isn't >> surprising, since those are the two hooks

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On 17 June 2017 at 08:05, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> The messy complications come from >> prepare_wheel_metadata and get_prepare_wheel_input_files, which isn't >> surprising, since those are the two hooks where we're

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On 17 June 2017 at 07:48, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hmm, here's another plea for simplicity, but from a slightly different > direction that I just thought of: what if we said that any hooks > starting with "ext_pip_..." are reserved for pip's use, and pip can > make up whatever

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

There's a canonical way to say "I want to run another python process in the same environment as the one I'm already running in". You look at sys.executable and run the binary named there. On Jun 16, 2017 12:32 PM, "Freddy Rietdijk" wrote: > I'm wondering about this one

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 17 June 2017 at 07:48, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Hmm, here's another plea for simplicity, but from a slightly different >> direction that I just thought of: what if we said that any hooks >> starting

Re: [Distutils] PEP 517: Python 3 finder?

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > If someone wants to experiment with this, then it's possible within the PEP > 517 framework to write a 2.7-compatible backend that searches the system for > a python 3 install and then uses it. I'm not sure it's a good

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

Thanks for continuing to push us forward on this, Thomas :) A small PEP readability request: given how the number of hooks has grown, could we get a section that just lists the required hooks and the optional hooks? Alternatively, give each hook its own subsection under "Build backend

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

On 16 June 2017 at 14:25, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:51 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> I can see some benefit to standardizing on a single format instead of >>

Re: [Distutils] Finishing up PEP 517

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 08:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > I think we should rename get_build_requires to > > get_build_wheel_requires, and add a get_build_sdist_requires. And the > > rule would be: > > > > get_build_sdist_requires: can assume build-system.requires are available > >