Requiring setuptools (on top of recommending pip)?
Peter Cock <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:34:20 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.bio.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKVJ-_6==Lg+5GZmf1tCmquH4V97e+10k=by_eGRpsb78Cq=xw@mail.gmail.com> |
Hello all, If you are not interested in the packaging details for how we release Biopython, you can stop reading now. According to https://packaging.python.org/current/ we should recommend using pip for installation (which we now do), and use setuptools to define projects and create Source Distributions (which we no not take advantage of fully). According to https://packaging.python.org/installing/ we can assume both pip and setuptools are available on Python 2.7.9 and 3.4 onwards (possibly after invoking ensurepip). Note we've deprecated and are likely to soon drop Python 3.3 support [*]. With Biopython 1.69 we included a minimal requirments.txt file which makes it easy to install our numpy dependency but we do not yet specify numpy via install_requires in setup.py - in part because we do not yet assume setuptools will be present. Here's a nice explanation of these two mechanisms and the differing usecases: https://caremad.io/posts/2013/07/setup-vs-requirement/ In short I would like to require setuptools be present for building Biopython, which will let us simply our setup.py file and take advantage of many of the meta-data fields which we currently omit (e.g. classifiers for which versions of Python supported, which gets advertised on PyPI etc). Peter [*] http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/2017-April/021674.html