Conversation
| on: | ||
| release: | ||
| types: | ||
| - published |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a release is published on GitHub, the sdist and bdist will automatically be uploaded to PyPI.
TODO: set up trusted publishing: https://docs.pypi.org/trusted-publishers/
| authors = [ | ||
| {name="Todd Gamblin", email="[email protected]"}, | ||
| ] | ||
| maintainers = [ | ||
| {name="Todd Gamblin", email="[email protected]"}, | ||
| {name="Adam J. Stewart", email="[email protected]"}, | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can add more people here, just let me know who we want. Maybe authors come from the first Spack paper and maintainers are a subset of people with merge privs?
| "hpsf" | ||
| ] | ||
| classifiers = [ | ||
| # https://pypi.org/classifiers/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are just the first ones that came to mind, can refine
| "pytest", | ||
| "pytest-xdist", | ||
| "setuptools", | ||
| "click", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see anywhere in Spack where we use setuptools or click?
|
|
||
| [build-system] | ||
| requires = ["hatchling"] | ||
| requires = ["hatchling>=1.26"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1.26+ needed for license_files support
|
@matthewcurry please review this. @tgamblin I can't add @matthewcurry as a reviewer |
|
At first blush, this looks pretty clean. It doesn't work yet as Adam has alluded to, as the import paths don't match the current organization. I'm not sure about the specifics of how this will work without wrenching around import paths in the main repo, since llnl, external, and spack are installed as peers under site-packages. |
|
Personally, I would move all of |
adamjstewart
force-pushed
the
pip/install
branch
2 times, most recently
from
dd7e666 to
b8ad37f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam J. Stewart <[email protected]>
adamjstewart
force-pushed
the
pip/install
branch
from
9363cfc to
61f1d39
Compare
4 participants
Follow-up to #32616 with newer package metadata
Closes #50238 without the custom shell scripts to maintain
Closes #1385 after a nice long wait
Pitch
One of our goals for Spack 1.0 (or shortly thereafter) is to make Spack as easy to install as possible. This PR does two things (which could be separated into separate PRs if desired):
pip install .for installation (by modifying pyproject.toml, may require additional changes)pip install spackfor installation (by adding continuous deployment to PyPI)Usage
To test this PR, simply clone this branch and run:
You can then see what gets placed in the sdist and bdist using:
The package can be installed using:
You can then run
spack helpand other commands to test things.sdist
At the moment, every file that is tracked by git ends up in the sdist. We can and should minimize this to remove random CI files, metadata, and tests.
bdist
At the moment, the package will be installed with the following hierarchy:
We need to decide what layout we plan to support, as this would currently require changing a lot of import paths to support.
Resources
For those unfamiliar with Python packaging, the following resources are useful: