-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7k
Migrate packaging to pyproject.toml
#9056
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Migrate packaging to pyproject.toml
#9056
Conversation
6344069 to
42d468b
Compare
|
OK, it's almost ready except:
|
8c65e6d to
6e67258
Compare
This is unrelated to your PR and I fixed it with #9129 |
6e67258 to
b16826c
Compare
|
Wow. It works indeed. Thank you so much. |
auvipy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to hold this off for now. As we got other priorities.
|
Sure. A vague estimation of when it would become envisageable ? |
|
To merge after #9210, I hope. |
it was automatically migrated but flake8 doesn't support the pyproject.toml format
zip-safe is deprecated and doesn't do anything. exclude 'tests*' is already the default behaviour
12a5a0b to
cf25dcd
Compare
|
watch-out: this PR is intended to be squash-merged |
|
So... this is a good example of a nice little pr that's a bit stalled. I don't really have any extra bandwidth to keep this moving, given existing commitments. Should we be having a discussion about getting the project into jazzband.co so that we've got a lower barrier of entry for new maintainers? |
|
Hey, that's a very interesting decision that is (way) beyond the scope of my humble little PR. Maybe let's open a dedicated issue ou GitHub discussion? |
Thanks for the reviews, I've heard about these changes but forgot about them. Applied your suggestions. |
|
With 3.16.1 now out of the way, I'd like to get this one merged and released on 3.16.2, either on its own or with very minor other changes. 3.17 will have a number of other more significant changes which means we'll keep postponing this. Thoughts? |
setup.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I realise this was discussed before but I would vote for removing this file entirely.
Django has dropped it since (at least) version 4.2, so if Django can do it, I'd say we can too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I hadn't seen the discussion, but I would vote the same. It's really not providing much other than some "backwards compatibility" for ancient packagers, and they might not be compatible with newer build backends (though I would expect that to be somewhat unlikely). I assume most people are installing via wheels and if it breaks for someone using a non standard approach they can finally update their setup as they have had years to do so.
browniebroke
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've given another review at the content of the distribution and it looks good to me 👍🏻
|
As October is approaching, we've started to receive contributions to update our Python support to add 3.14 and drop 3.9: Would be nice to get this across the line, and get these 2 other PRs to update the trove classifiers in the new file. Will leave few days for other maintainers to do a final review and unless there are any objections, will merge it. |
peterthomassen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm!
|
Thanks for the contribution and (the patience)! 🎉 |
pyproject.toml
Just an initiative of my own.
Don't forget to squash merge the PR.