Moving python-build to PyPA

We have discussed this a bit on the pull request and it seems like the main blocker is the “searchability” of the name:

The problem is not what to use for python -m , but that build as a directory name is way too common with established perception.

Personally I would go with a more unique name. python-build is also not a very good name since it is the pyenv command to build a Python installation, and I expect most Google results to point there due to pyenv’s popularity.

But since we are opening the scope and bringing more users, I think it should not be that much of an issue, the name would be more widespread as the userbase grows. I think pip install build is very easy to remember.

If we had a good name to replace it, I would just use it instead, but that is proving difficult. So, I think it is worth to maybe reconsider keeping the name.

We don’t have a clear direction from where to proceed here so things are tricky :stuck_out_tongue:. I feel myself being pulled from both directions.

As long as you’re happy to extend the scope to support automatically provisioning build dependencies I’m happy with going ahead with build; and accepting the project under PyPa. We can put the current behaviour under a feature flag (e.g. --isolation none, while default would be --isolation pip). :+1: I’d be happy to help out with maintainance too if that’s the case.

5 Likes

After getting to play with build a bit over the last few days, I’m basically 100% in agreement with this (and what @pganssle similarly said above).

1 Like

Indeed same here.

Another benefit of doing this is that it’ll let us remove the CLI from pep517 (the library) and to start pushing users toward this new tool for the CLI-based use cases.

A gentle nudge to see what the state of this is. IIUC, the --isolation flag was marked as a “blocking” feature request for moving this project into PyPA.

With PEP 609 accepted, we now have a proper process to accept this into PyPA when we want to go down that route. :slight_smile:

Thanks :grin:

The --isolation flag (well, actually --no-isolation, isolation is the default behavior now) is implemented in master, I’d like to do a release but there are a few things I want to get in place first. I am not sure whether it makes sense to propose now or after the release, I have been a bit busy so I don’t have a concrete ETA for it, I’d say maybe 1 month? Although, it might have to be a bit longer than that.

@pradyunsg the issue tracker still has a few release blockers in it, see https://github.com/FFY00/python-build/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

I would suggest that you fix the release blockers, ask formally for PyPA project acceptance, (hopefully) get acceptance, and then make the fresh release along with an announcement that it’s now a PyPA project. However, if there is something about PyPA membership that would logistically make it easier for you to fix the release blockers, then please say so and disregard my suggestion. :slight_smile:

2 Likes