Re: PEP 518 - pyproject.toml with no build-system.requires

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:22 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 1. If [build-system] is present but requires is missing, raise an error.
>> 2. If [build-system] is missing, they can take one of the following
>> two approaches:
>>   a) Act as if pyproject.toml is missing altogether
>>   b) Act as if [build-system] is present, with a requires value of
>> ["setuptools", "wheel"]
>>
>> Whether tools act differently in cases 2a and 2b is tool-dependent
>> (for pip, we would isolate in case 2b but not in case 2a) which is why
>> the choice is left to individual tools. That makes the
>> "Thomas/Nathaniel" debate into a tool implementation choice, and both
>> of the options are allowable from the perspective of the PEP.
>
> This sounds fine to me, and I prefer a 2b approach.

I also prefer option 2 (and specifically 2b but like you say, 2a vs 2b
isn't something the PEP cares about), just because it's the simplest
possible approach: we always act the same when build-system.requires
is missing, regardless of why it's missing. And it's the same logic as
we use to handle a missing build-system.build-backend.

It doesn't matter that much though. It seems extremely unlikely that
anyone's going to create an empty [build-system] section just because
they can...

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
--
Distutils-SIG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5E6O2PKSQEAK232INZLTOJESOJDFYHKK/