Does numpy need a *.dist-info directory? What is the status of setuptools?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Does numpy need a *.dist-info directory? What is the status of setuptools?

Charles R Harris
Hi All,

A question for any packaging gurus out there, should NumPy have a *.dist-info directory? I note that currently we have a *.egg-info directory. I also have a question as to what role setuptools should have going forward. Should we still rely on them, or has pip matured to the degree that we no longer need it. Note that we will only be supporting Python >= 3.5 in the near future.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does numpy need a *.dist-info directory? What is the status of setuptools?

ralfgommers


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

A question for any packaging gurus out there, should NumPy have a *.dist-info directory? I note that currently we have a *.egg-info directory.

Those are both autogenerated, we don't have those in the repo. The current state of our packaging is fine in that respect.
 
I also have a question as to what role setuptools should have going forward. Should we still rely on them, or has pip matured to the degree that we no longer need it. Note that we will only be supporting Python >= 3.5 in the near future.

Pip is not a build tool, it invokes setuptools. The only viable alternative to setuptools at the moment is scikit-build. But I'm not in a hurry to switch, I'd rather try scikit-build on less critical packages than numpy first.

Cheers,
Ralf



Chuck

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does numpy need a *.dist-info directory? What is the status of setuptools?

Charles R Harris


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

A question for any packaging gurus out there, should NumPy have a *.dist-info directory? I note that currently we have a *.egg-info directory.

Those are both autogenerated, we don't have those in the repo. The current state of our packaging is fine in that respect.
 
I also have a question as to what role setuptools should have going forward. Should we still rely on them, or has pip matured to the degree that we no longer need it. Note that we will only be supporting Python >= 3.5 in the near future.

Pip is not a build tool, it invokes setuptools. The only viable alternative to setuptools at the moment is scikit-build. But I'm not in a hurry to switch, I'd rather try scikit-build on less critical packages than numpy first.

I was more thinking of distutils vs setuptools, but maybe I am misunderstanding the relationship between the two.

Chuck 

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does numpy need a *.dist-info directory? What is the status of setuptools?

ralfgommers


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Charles R Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

A question for any packaging gurus out there, should NumPy have a *.dist-info directory? I note that currently we have a *.egg-info directory.

Those are both autogenerated, we don't have those in the repo. The current state of our packaging is fine in that respect.
 
I also have a question as to what role setuptools should have going forward. Should we still rely on them, or has pip matured to the degree that we no longer need it. Note that we will only be supporting Python >= 3.5 in the near future.

Pip is not a build tool, it invokes setuptools. The only viable alternative to setuptools at the moment is scikit-build. But I'm not in a hurry to switch, I'd rather try scikit-build on less critical packages than numpy first.

I was more thinking of distutils vs setuptools, but maybe I am misunderstanding the relationship between the two.

We don't want to go back to distutils-only; there are some advantages to setuptools and it's gotten less bad at breaking numpy.distutils over the last years. And anyway, even if we would switch away from setuptools, pip will enable setuptools before calling our own setup.py and at that point setuptools has already done its monkeypatch-distutils dance. So there's no point avoiding setuptools.

Ralf



 

Chuck 

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion