Distutils-SIG

Download

distutils-sig@python.org

January 2021

2 discussions

Archive this list & redirect conversation elsewhere?
by Pradyun Gedam May 9, 2021

May 9, 2021

TL;DR: OK to archive this mailing list? Reply by Aug 30th. Below: Context, Proposal, Reasoning, and timeline. *Context*: For multiple years now, we've been advising users to use setuptools and to move away from using distutils. There has been a long standing plan [^1] to vendor distutils into setuptools to allow it to evolve independently of the Python standard library and to allow for removal of distutils from the Python standard library. Recently, setuptools adopted the distutils [^2] which, as far as I can tell, starts the long process of removing distutils from the Python standard library. PEP 517 [^3] also removed the special status of distutils/setuptools as the only pipeline that can be used for generating distributions for Python projects. For some time now, "distutils" has not been a "primary" tool in the broader Python Packaging ecosystem, with setuptools being an overall superior tool that also has a good interoperability story with the other Python packaging tooling. This is acknowledged in the description of this mailing list as: > Now, it's better described as the "packaging interoperability SIG", > where issues that cut across different parts of the Python packaging > ecosystem get discussed and resolved. However, this mailing list is no longer serving this stated role either, with the Packaging category on discuss.python.org becoming the primary location for packaging tool interoperability discussions. Over the last year, the Packaging category on discuss.python.org had 841 active topics, with only 40 topics with 3 or fewer responses. [^5] In the last 100 days, the Packaging category on discuss.python.org has had 91 active topics. More than 10 PEPs have been discussed in the Packaging category on discuss.python.org in the last 100 days. Over the last year, distutils-sig had ~109 active threads, with (based on a quick skim) most having 3 or fewer responses/posters. [^4] In the last 100 days, distutils-sig has had 32 active threads (at least 7 of these have the same subject as another thread with Re:/Fwd: added). There has been only 1 PEP-related feedback discussion on distutils-sig in the last year. Most of the other threads are user support requests or announcements. *Proposal*: I suggest that, one month from now, we stop posting to this list (distutils-sig(a)python.org) and archive it. *Reasoning*: I think we do not use this mailing list for its dedicated purpose, and it does not serve any secondary function that isn't better served by a different communication channel already. (1) this mailing list is no longer the primary location for interoperability discussions (2) we have better channels for user support requests (such as issue trackers of various projects, packaging-problems etc.) (3) we have other channels for making announcements (such as the pypi-announce mailing list, the PyPA twitter account, discuss.python.org etc.) *Timeline*: Here's what I suggest, and what I will carry out if there is no objection. In one month, on August 30th, I would verify that no one has argued here for why this mailing list should not be closed/archived. Or, even if a few people have objected to closing the list, I would check for rough consensus, especially of people who are doing SOMETHING productive having to do with Python Packaging (such as maintainers of Python packages, maintainers of Python Packaging tooling, folks running key infrastructure, etc.). Then, I would request the list administrators to post a final message to this list (marking its close and suggesting that people use discuss.python.org instead) and, to archive this mailing list. This would leave archives available at their current URLs, so links, browsing and search would work. And finally, I would look through relevant documentation within PyPA repositories to see what needs updating (READMEs and so on pointing to the old list), and submit pull requests. I appreciate the work folks here have done to carry forward Python packaging over the past 21 years of this mailing list. I don't mean to diminish that or to insult anyone here. I want to help us out, and I think closing this list will help focus our energy better. But I am open to hearing that I am wrong. Realizing-that-distutils-sig-is-older-than-me-ly, Pradyun Gedam [^1]: https://www.pypa.io/en/latest/roadmap/#vendor-distutils-into-setuptools [^2]: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/2143 [^3]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ [^4]: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/latest?count… [^5]: https://discuss.python.org/c/packaging/14/l/top/yearly?order=posts

11 19

Making setup.py run external command to build
by Julian Smith April 2, 2021

April 2, 2021

Hello I have a project with a fairly involved build process where we generate C++ via a python-clang-based code analyser, generates Python bindings for the resulting C++ API with SWIG, and finally compile and link to create various .so's and .py files. I'd like to package things up with a setup.py script, but from what i have read, it looks like distutils expects to compile, link and run swig itself, using distutils.core.setup()'s ext_modules arg? Is there a way to write setup.py so that it instead runs an external command (e.g. 'cd foo && make all') when it is asked to build? Thanks for any help, - Jules -- http://op59.net

7 19