Replies: 4 comments
-
|
@C-Loftus - @tomkralidis recently updated OWSLib to use pyproject.toml - see geopython/OWSLib#1031 I'm in favour, although slightly disappointed the new approach still requires MANIFEST.in, has a strange configuration for setuptools, and doesn't support some tool configs yet (flake8, twine). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @geographika. FYI @C-Loftus we are moving various Geopython projects to pyproject for project configuration, which will help evaluate/test accordingly. We'll address this as part of 0.24 and in concert with #1753. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Makes sense. Thanks both 👍
I am less familiar with MANIFEST.in but regarding tools, I believe the blocker on tooling is generally on the tool side (i.e. flake8 doesn't support it due to the personal preference of the maintainer). I don't believe there is any limitation in pyproject.toml itself. For what its worth, there are ways to use ruff (which is configurable natively in pyproject.toml) in a flake8 compatible way. Just wanted to raise that may be of interest. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We use flake8 as a rule. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am raising this to inquire what the maintainers think about transitioning from
requirements.txttopyproject.tomlMy understanding is that more and more tools in the Python ecosystem are transitioning to centralizing all project development config within
pyproject.tomlas specified in pep 518By switching to
pyproject.tomlthe project would getpytest.iniinto thepyproject.tomlfile and centralize configuration for development toolingsetup.py. My understanding is thatsetup.pyis older and historically has had security concerns due to allowing arbitrary code execution during build time.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions