Cliquematch Alternatives

cliquematch reviews and mentions

• My User Experience Porting Off Setup.py
  4 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 30 Oct 2023

  Thank you Gregory for writing this post. There have been a bunch of announcements about "setup.py has been deprecated", but few have clearly outlined how to move away from setup.py, and more importantly, fewer have outlined what a struggle it is to move away from setup.py.

  I was sad to see setuptools officially deprecated, because it looks like another way in which Python packaging is being red-taped away for a non-expert. If someone like the OP (who has 10+ years programming Python) had to do so much for what appears to be a zstd CFFI/Rust wrapper, where does that leave the rest of us?

  Here's a python package of mine that uses setup.py: https://github.com/ahgamut/cliquematch/blob/master/setup.py which I have not upgraded to the new tool(s) yet. I think I will need to upgrade it soon. If anyone has suggestions for a tool that will _fully replace_ setup.py, I would like to see tutorials with the following examples:

  1. How would I build a package that has pure-Python files and data files? With setuptools I would use maybe MANIFEST.in or package_dir.

  2. How would I build a package that has a CPython extension accessed via cffi? (this post points to the answer)

  3. How would I build a package that has a CPython extension _without_ cffi, that just wraps some small C code I wrote with CPython's API? What about an extension that uses PyBind11? What about an extension that uses Rust?

  4. How would I build a package that requires a "system" package like libblas-dev? Can something like numpy be built optimally without ever writing setup.py? What would a config for that look like? Last I remember numpy used their own patch of distutils to build, I wonder what it is now.