Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 1
    Why focus on pep517.build which is only meant as an experiment, a temporary crutch when there are productive tools such as flit, poetry, hatch, and probably even more?
    – sinoroc
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 20:43
  • 3
    Because it was a successful experiment in my estimation (I and many other PyPA people use it), as it has the right semantics for the job, and because it is the only general-purpose PEP 517 build front-end that I know. flit and poetry are vertically integrated in that they expect you to use their backend. hatch appears to do many other things. pep517.build is a simple tool built for exactly this purpose.
    – Paul
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 20:48
  • 1
    Ah right, good point. I was focusing on the build back-ends. And I actually thought pep517.build was one of them. But not at all, it's actually a build front-end. Also hatch is not PEP517 ready as I see now.
    – sinoroc
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 21:01
  • Yes, perfect. I delete my answer.
    – sinoroc
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 21:05
  • 1
    Will the absence of setup.py affect editable installs? pip install -e folder
    – jerivas
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 17:10