Log file Viewer

[00:17:26] <FFY00> :/

[00:24:51] <travis-ci> pypa/pip#18148 (master - 3fe826c : Pradyun Gedam): The build passed.

[00:24:51] <travis-ci> Change view : https://github.com/pypa/pip/compare/b921db84bdace474139477089ef1865a0217825f...3fe826c699d85eccc7ebf16f4d86c851b2a1e705

[00:24:51] <travis-ci> Build details : https://travis-ci.com/pypa/pip/builds/189845873

[11:39:13] <mdk> Did I recently read that pip would generate a stub setup.py when a setup.cfg is present? Or did I dreamt?

[11:40:13] <pradyunsg> mdk: it isn't pip that generates it, but setuptools itself. You'll need a new-enough setuptools for this.

[11:41:09] <pradyunsg> FFY00, graingert: isn't it amazing how we always seem to hit edge cases/sharp edges when working on Python packaging stuff? :)

[11:42:25] <pradyunsg> FFY00: is there literally no name that we could settle on?

[11:42:56] <pradyunsg> IIUC, we're at least doing `pipx run --spec=build pyproject-build`, right?

[11:44:49] <mdk> pradyunsg: ok thanks :))

[11:47:28] <mdk> OK it's v40.0.9, and it require a pyproject.toml :) found it thanks again :)

[11:48:55] <graingert> pradyunsg: I don't see `build` being two generic though

[11:49:23] <graingert> Had the same discussion about python-modernize and modernize

[11:50:09] <graingert> I like to make the name as generic as possible and let Debian/fedora come up with a new one

[11:50:51] <mgedmin> somebody could upload a pyproject-build package to pypi that install_requires=['build'] and maybe ships a console_script?

[11:55:00] <pradyunsg> mgedmin: that's been discussed in the pypa/build issue linked above (kinda-sorta rejected, I think).

[11:56:54] <pradyunsg> mgedmin: and realistically, the difference is `pipx run --spec=build pyproject-build` vs `pipx run pyproject-build`. I honestly don't care which one we pick, but if we're going with `pyproject-build` -- I'd much rather that we rename the entire project. :)

[11:57:24] <pradyunsg> For searchability/discoverability reasons.

[11:59:06] <pradyunsg> FFY00: ^ imma suggest this on the PR, since I missed that we merged the change.

[11:59:45] <tos9> I think I said this elsewhere to paul and not on the ticket but if my vote counts at all I still think that the project needs the generic name to be successful in a marketing sense

[11:59:49] <tos9> (i.e. be called "build")

[12:00:01] <tos9> so if my vote counts at all yeah I still think the build name should stay

[12:00:38] <tos9> (even if the entry point changes)

[12:00:43] <tos9> which I see it did and yeah makes sense

[19:58:04] <graingert> Does anyone have any evidence that the `build` console_script will cause problems?