10000 Use pyproject by AA-Turner · Pull Request #97 · python/python-docs-theme · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Use pyproject #97

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 6, 2023
Merged

Use pyproject #97

merged 3 commits into from
Feb 6, 2023

Conversation

AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

Moves to consolidated pyproject.toml and updates GHA.

A

@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

I like pyproject-only projects, but why flit? setuptools would work too.

(I bet flit had an advantage before PEP 621?)

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

I copied the initial file from another project of mine that used flit, and flit gives fewer things to clean up (no egg info directory).

But the entire point of standardisation is that changing the build backend should be easy so if you'd prefer setuptools we could change?

A

@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

changing the build backend should be easy

It is and that's good.

What I fear is build backends created "just because it's possible", maintained by a single person and backends with tons of lines of code. I don't know them all but for example pipenv was 304k lines of code last time I checked. As I like to say E=MC² (Errors = MoreCode²).

I just checked at flit, it's 4k lines of code, 2k lines of tests, which sounds good to me. It has a single maintainer though, which does not sounds good (but setuptools don't have many more...).

Facing this "big mess of new backends", and as setuptools is handling pyproject.toml correctly, my reaction is to try to stick to the standard. (I see setuptools as the "de facto standard" and other backends as "side projects", I know this is a very personal and simplified point of view).

Flit looks simple and well maintained, LGTM, don't bother changing it.

@AA-Turner AA-Turner force-pushed the packaging branch 2 times, most recently from e77160d to 63f501c Compare November 12, 2022 14:17
@hugovk
Copy link
Member
hugovk commented Feb 6, 2023

Thanks!

@hugovk hugovk merged commit c9b34b9 into python:main Feb 6, 2023
@AA-Turner AA-Turner deleted the packaging branch April 11, 2023 13:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants
0