Open pp-mo opened 6 days ago
We still need a setup.py
and we're already PEP517/8 compliant
Indeed removing setup.py is good but not mandatory. In case of c-extensions, like this one, it is still easier to maintain. One alternative is mesonpy but I confess I did not like it and I'm using only for Fortran extensions b/c there is no better way at the moment.
TL;DR while the setup.py here could use a clean-up, it is still relevant and correct with modern packaging standards.
@ocefpaf Awesome, thanks :beers:
I've also had a look at meson, and it looks interesting, but I'm not sure whether using it as a build-backend would suit cf-units
... in particular, I fear that we've baked in some nasty dependencies on how setuptools
works.
If we were serious about adopting meson
we'd have to scope out the impact/effort involved vs the benefit.
There isn't something you know about that's going to break us when attempting to support >py311
in cf-units
whilst staying with setuptools
?
I noticed that pyspharm opted to adopt meson
for py312
support ... but they're building upon Fortran, so I was guessing that was somehow related to the numpy.disutils migration. Any insight/advice on that?
I noticed that pyspharm opted to adopt
meson
forpy312
support ... but they're building upon Fortran, so I was guessing that was somehow related to the numpy.disutils migration. Any insight/advice on that?
setuptools
is still OK for most c-extensions on modern Python. I'm pretty sure we can drop the numpy.distutils, if that is still used here. I believe that the effort to move to meson is not worth it. I'd rather use that energy to ditch udunits2 and make it pure Python.
Cool 👍
Yup, dropping udunits2 would solve a lot of problems.
I'm 100% behind that 🎉
AT LEAST replace setup.cfg
setup.py mat be required because of the Cython info