On 4 February 2017 at 13:42, René Dudfield <renesd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I like how pbr uses setup.cfg. Which I think other tools could use, by putting their config inside a setup.cfg section.Yep, there are a few tools to use declarative metadata for packaging (d2to1 is/was another). Flit was initially an experiment in whether it's possible to do Python packaging without using the distutils/setuptools machinery. As far as I know, all other tools build on top of distutils/setuptools, but I believe this is the source of many headaches.There are PEPs in the works (516, 517, 518) which define a new pyproject.toml file for packaging metadata. Once this is a bit more advanced, I plan to move flit's config inside that file. I hope that it will become a more modern, better specified alternative for setup.cfg.Perhaps I agree with you about the magic. I guess it's more a thought experiment about how simple we can make it at this point. Perhaps it could be made usable by explaining to the user how to specify the missing data if it's not there (eg. no git... then it tells people it tried to find it in git, and for people to add author etc).+1 to running the thought experiment.I guess how I might use these things is in a tool like 'flit init' - if git is present, it could use it to inform its default guess for author name & email, and then it writes these to a config file rather than using them directly.I have some thoughts on a tool which could add or modify features of a project like packaging or docs - as opposed to tools like cookiecutter, which expects to create an entire project. I wrote about this here:
https://github.com/takluyver/flit/pull/97#issuecomment- 270984130