feat: add PEP 621 config only

[henryiii]

This is a simpler, PEP 621 only version of #1030. Might not be ready to go this route, but this would be what I think we could do.

Also, I'd love to move this over to using pipx. That would really simplify the ending commands (building and publishing), and would remove the unix/windows split from everything except the first line, where pipx would be installed.

Update from @bhrutledge:

Merging is currently blocked on changing the example package name to support backend discovery; see discussion in #1031 (comment). Until that's fixed, the tutorial is broken. Further content improvements can be made in future PRs. Closes #1085.

[brettcannon]

LGTM, but I don't manage this site. 😁

[henryiii]

Maybe it was harder to notice because of the draft status? I took the draft off, maybe that would help.

[webknjaz]

I agree that we need to wait for the setuptools PR to be complete. Also, I feel like there may be links on the internet pointing to this document in the context of setuptools that may become misleading. Not sure what we can do about that, though.

[bhrutledge]

Echoing other comments here and in #1030, I appreciate the effort, but I think we should wait for pypa/setuptools#2671. With that in mind, I'm wondering if someone could open a PR that updates this tutorial as if setuptools had support for PEP 621. In addition to being proactive instead of reactive, it might serve as an additional validation of the work in setuptools.

[henryiii]

I think having the tabs (with setuptools emphasized as the first tab) is probably fine - this is meant to be a general packaging tutorial, and for many users, Flit is likely a great way to get started, it's light and much faster than setuptools, and isn't struggling with the distutils drop like setuptools 60+ currently is. Having tabs indicates that this is a general tutorial rather than a specific, one tool only thing, and seems to be the direction we are moving. If we really can do the tutorial identically for each of at least setuptools and Flit (optionally PDM too), then I think that would be helpful for setuptools as well - it would provide motivation to make sure that custom tool.setuptools is not required for a basic, Python only package.

[henryiii]

I've added setuptools, and tried to bundle any discussion about backends into the tabs. Someone reading the tutorial would just see setuptools unless they try to select a different tab.

PEP 621 configuration is now shown in the Scikit-HEP developer docs, BTW. No tabs there since we don't have those set up. https://scikit-hep.org/developer/pep621. The "regular" page there will become a binary (probably scikit-build) packing guide eventually.

[bhrutledge]

Thanks for continuing to chip away at this, in spite of naysayers like myself. It's helpful to have something concrete to react to, and I'm optimistic that some collaboration will lead to a polished final version.

[henryiii]

I've matched the package name and module name. I've also standardized on using _ everywhere. I think it's a bit better practice, avoids an easy mistake, and keeps the SDist name consistent with the wheel name. The old printouts were wrong, by the way; wheel names always replace - with _ so that they can be parsed into tags correctly.

[henryiii]

Guessing the build is broken by pypa/pip@347e724 . main has the same problem. @pradyunsg this seems to need to be pointed to pip:0-repeatability instead of pip:repeatability. Why are the zero's there?

[dstufft]

FWIW, I see on the preview it says:

name is the distribution name of your package. This can be any name as long as it only contains letters, numbers, _ , and -.

I'm not sure if the omission was done on purpose, but . is the other character also valid in distribution names.

[pradyunsg]

Guessing the build is broken by pypa/pip@347e724 . main has the same problem. @pradyunsg this seems to need to be pointed to pip:0-repeatability instead of pip:repeatability. Why are the zero's there?

This has been fixed.

[bhrutledge]

It brings me great pleasure (and relief) to approve this. Further refinements are welcome in future PRs. Thanks @henryiii for pushing this forward, and everyone who contributed to the conversation.

[merwok]

Wording issue: tools frontend build tools