Hi Maxim, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Hmm, sorry, I had lost track of what the original missing dependencies > were. In this case (setuptools-scm), it is special in that it extends > the setuptools build system; it must be loaded early by setuptools, so > perhaps that explains why the dependency doesn't show as required in > METADATA. I think going forward with the revised PEP 517 build system [0] > will alleviate such issues, by allowing to declare the build system and > its dependencies in a TOML file. > > In the mean time, the statu quo seems the best option to me (manually > specify the setuptools extensions as native-inputs for the python > packages that need it). We should look forward adjusting our importer > to the latest PEP 517 trends (along the PEP 517 build system patches > awaiting review for core-updates!), which are quickly becoming > ubiquitous in the Python world. > > [0] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ Alright, makes sense to me! I’m not sure I have much to contribute to the review of the PEP 517 patches, being ignorant about these things, but I fully support the effort. :-) In the meantime I guess we can close this bug? Thanks, Ludo’.
