Re: Python packaging workflow future (setup.py install removal and PEP517)

On 05. 06. 20 22:30, Filipe Laíns wrote: > Hi, Hey Filipe. For Fedora related Python packaging topics, would you be OK to use a public mailing list? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedorapr...

> I am querying you a your current python packaging workflow. How do > you > handle the installation of python packages? setuptools, pip, > other...? For the old packages, we still very much use python setup.py install. For the new, we have provisional system that uses PEP 517/518. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros We have a draft of new Python packaging guidelines that use this: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedorapr...

> In Arch Linux we use setuptools (setup.py build && setup.py > install). > For PEP517 we generally use dephell to generate a setup.py script, > it > works most of the time but it's still an hack. > > Unfortunately, setup.py install will be removed soon (see [1]), > which > breaks our workflow. My proposed workflow alternative is to build > wheels (via PEP517 or setuptools directly) and install them. I will read that ticket later, it is very long :/ > We don't think pip is a viable option for this because it requires > bootstrapping a big number of dependencies. Packaging a vendored > version of pip goes against our guidelines. We went the "lazy" way and our pip bundles the vendored deps. I am not very happy about it, but it works. Our guidelines discourage it, but it is possible.

> I have been working on some the tooling that should be able to fit > our > needs: python-build[2] and python-install[3]. I have also been in > contact with a few PyPA members who have shown interest in having > such > tools. Nice. See also https://github.com/pradyunsg/installer/issues/1

> So, I would like to ask you if you are facing a similar problem? If > so, > I would like to get your opinion on this new tooling. Does it fix > your > problem? Do you have any reservations about this? Are there any > special > use-cases you would like to handle? Even if we create the entirely new packaging experience with PEP 517/518 based macros, we have thousands of exciting packages that rely on python setup.py install. If that gets removed, it will be very painful. If it is "just" unsupported, we might be OK.

> [1] https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2088 > [2] https://github.com/FFY00/python-build > [3] https://github.com/FFY00/python-install