First off: I haven’t been keeping up with the meandering thread that is the one about non-wheel-distribution Python projects. Life and all that.
Process notes:
- Please don’t post links to PRs adding a new PEP until they are merged. Having PEPs go through review by PEP editors before we start discussing them is a good thing, especially since important details like confirming the PEP number as well as ensuring the sponsor is actually interested in sponsoring the PEP are engaged in the discussion. We (as a group) should really stop being overeager in sharing draft PRs here – we learnt that PEPs change/improve meaningfully in the initial iteration as a result of the PEP editors’ review (eg: PEP 704, 722, 723).
- I’ve editted the title since “Draft PEP” has a meaning distinct from what you’ve used here.
On the actual proposal: Isn’t the idea here basically the one discussed extensively in Adding a non-metadata installer-only `dev-dependencies` table to pyproject.toml?
I have reservations about a few aspects of the current proposal here:
- We intentionally avoided using “requires”/“requirements” as a name/key in PEP 621, since it is an overloaded term. Let’s not reintroduce that here.
- The syntax distinction between
.[test]vs[test]is extremely subtle, especially since it’s “just a dot”.
I’m not gonna comment on more aspects of this potential PEP until it actually ends up on peps.python.org. 