Re: Dealing with flit -- a simplified packaging of python modules
On Sep 19, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>By the way, I am also upstream for flit, and I'm prepared to help build
>some tooling to use it for distro packaging. I know it will cause some
>inconvenience in the short term because there's infrastructure around
>setup.py packaging, but ultimately I think that having declarative
>metadata should be an advantage.
There have been countless attempts at moving the Python packaging
infrastructure to a declarative syntax over the years. I remember talking to
Tarek at a Pycon *many* years ago about this. Maybe this time it'll catch
on. :)
flit doesn't build sdists, so I guess the current toolchain which starts with
.orig.tar.gz won't work with flitted packages. The README says:
"People may also want a traditional sdist for other reasons, such as Linux
distro packaging. I hope that these problems will diminsh over time."
I'm not sure which problem you hope will diminish! People wanting traditional
sdists, the problem of Linux distro packaging <wink> or needing sdists for
downstream consumers like Debian.
OTOH, as wheels get more popular for upstream package distributions, I do
think we need a good story for turning wheels into debs. There's some work
ongoing to turn debs back into wheels:
https://github.com/paulproteus/dirtbike
Cheers,
-Barry
Reply to: