PEP 660: Editable installs for PEP-517 style build backends

[pradyunsg (Pradyun Gedam)]

@pganssle

it seems the current modus operandi in Python packaging is to design the entire architecture first, accept the PEP, and then move on to the next PEP.

Where is this coming from? This PEP has proof-of-concept implementations in flit, pip, enscons and more.

It also allows us to innovate on more strict models (like the ones you’re advocating for) purely on the build backend’s side without needing to go through a standardization process. If some build backends want to be stricter, they have the control to do so within this model.

@pf_moore

I wasn’t at the 2019 summit, and while I believe a summary was posted somewhere, I don’t know where.

The notes are cross-linked from here: PyCon US Packaging Mini-Summit 2019 - #60 by sumanah

The notes from the editable discussion are https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/256#issuecomment-504790004.

@pganssle

agreed upon at the 2019 PyCon US PyPA summit would allow the install scheme to vary by tool (or within a tool).

As per my memory (and reading of the notes), the design of this PEP is basically what we agreed upon at the summit. The notes also state that you didn’t like this approach at that time either.