cannot disable PEP-517

[gaborbernat]

2019-02-01T17:30:51.5986637Z python3.7 -m pip wheel --no-use-pep517 --no-deps -w /home/vsts/work/1/a 'git+https://github.com/pypa/setuptools.git'
2019-02-01T17:30:51.6018420Z [command]/bin/bash --noprofile --norc /home/vsts/work/_temp/05fff709-f0d4-4189-a7a4-3202635fb045.sh
2019-02-01T17:30:51.9739954Z Collecting git+https://github.com/pypa/setuptools.git
2019-02-01T17:30:51.9741503Z   Cloning https://github.com/pypa/setuptools.git to /tmp/pip-req-build-u29rjlh8
2019-02-01T17:30:55.7151472Z Disabling PEP 517 processing is invalid: project specifies a build backend of setuptools.build_meta in pyprojec

I must be missing here something but why?

[pfmoore]

If you explicitly specify build-backend, we can't presume that the setup.py fallback can't build your project (after all, you could have specified a backend of flit).

Yes, we could have checked for whether you had a setup.py, and you specifiied setuptools.build_meta in pyproject.toml, and if you did, allowed --no-use-pep517, but we don't. The intention was that --no-use-pep517 would only be needed for projects without a build-backend which for some reason needed to opt out of the new logic (which would get triggered even if pyproject.toml only contained tool settings). But if you've specified build-backend, you've already chosen to opt in.

What's your use case? Specifically, why don't you just remove build-backend from your pyproject.toml if you want to use the legacy code path?

[gaborbernat]

setuptools excluded the pyproject.toml to solve https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-517-backend-bootstrapping/789/45, but seems they need to remove the backend key for a durable solution instead then. My expectation was if we disable it would fall back to pip 18.1 behaviour aka install via PEP-518.

[pfmoore]

Yeah, that's a particular special case (as you know), and unfortunately, --no-use-pep517 won't help you there (and any change we'd make to allow it to wouldn't happen any faster than the "real" solution we're working towards in that Discourse conversation).

[gaborbernat]

I'll close it for now as the current recommended solution in such cases is to remove the build-backend keyword altogether.

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.