Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:04 AM Ofek Lev wrote: > Can we please quantify such heuristics? I want something concrete to write > in my OSS to-do list :) > I don't think we can or should provide an exact number of other projects that need to adopt what you're doing before we will. It's more of a "w

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

Hey Ofek. On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 17:04, Ofek Lev wrote: > > I'd much rather let the bulk of smaller projects adopt, and iron out the > details, and then update when it's a better beaten track. > > Can we please quantify such heuristics? I want something concrete to write > in my OSS to-do list :

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

Okay then! Just 2 questions before I go: > I'd much rather let the bulk of smaller projects adopt, and iron out the details, and then update when it's a better beaten track. Can we please quantify such heuristics? I want something concrete to write in my OSS to-do list :) > I am referring to t

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

I agree with James and Carlton, -1 from me. Best, Mariusz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-develope

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

I think we need to be very cautious. Anecdotally, I've seen folks hitting issues trying to adopt the new methods, and I don't see any upside to Django being an earlier adopter here. We were slow adopting PEP 517 and still had regressions reported: https://github.com/django/django/pull/12013 https

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 1:34 PM Ofek Lev wrote: > > My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the > wrong way. In the pull request you say [...] But the blog post you quote is > just saying to run "python -m build" instead of "python setup.py" > > This issue is that the `

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

> My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the wrong way. In the pull request you say [...] But the blog post you quote is just saying to run "python -m build" instead of "python setup.py" This issue is that the `python -m build`/PEP 517 way does not support the deprec

Re: Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 10:06 AM Ofek Lev wrote: > Hello! This is about using only `pyproject.toml` for packaging > https://github.com/django/django/pull/15874 My initial reaction is "no", and that this request kind of rubs me the wrong way. In the pull request you say: > As a result, the exec

Switching to PEP 621 project metadata

Hello! This is about using only `pyproject.toml` for packaging https://github.com/django/django/pull/15874 The main question I think as Nick asked is whether it's okay to remove support for `python setup.py bdist_rpm`. As I mention in the OP: 1. Fedora does not use that