improve packaging, migrate to setup.cfg

[deronnax]

declarative config (putting all the packaging information into the setup.cfg) is superior to imperative config (using code in setup.py) (source: setuptools themselve)

You lose the ability to do python setup.py test but managing tests with setup.py is deprecated and so is calling setup.py via the command line.

[deronnax]

#398 should be merged first

[sergei-maertens]

Shouldn't this entirely setup.py just be removed? As far as I can tell all the packing info is already in pyproject.toml and poetry-based. I found out about this the hard way in our fork, and there's a serious lack of documentation on how to actually build and publish the package:

poetry build
poetry publish

[Viicos]

The relevant info is here:

python3-saml/pyproject.toml

Lines 79 to 85 in a1211a8

	[build-system]
	requires = [
	"poetry>=1.1.15",
	"setuptools >= 40.1.0",
	"wheel"
	]
	build-backend = "poetry.core.masonry.api"

the build backend points to Poetry so any setuptools related files (setup.py, setup.cfg) is currently/will be ignored.

If you want to stick with Poetry, I would suggest using:

[build-system]
requires = ["poetry-core>=1.0.0"]
build-backend = "poetry.core.masonry.api"

There's no need to require poetry and all the dependencies when building

[deronnax]

Ah damn. All this work for almost nothing! I wasn't sure Poetry was the way to go, because it's not used in CI, so I was mislead thinking Poetry was not used (and actually it might not be, since setup.py metadata are still relevant. But since the package is not built in the CI, we can't know).
Is the maintainer still out there? @pitbulk ?

[sergei-maertens]

Yeah I don't know a lot about poetry, but it looks like the pip install -e . in the makefile does somehow use pyproject.toml and poetry build systems etc.

I've recently gone through the same surprises and frustrations - so some documentation improvements and cleanups (removing setup.py completely) would definitely clarify the situation.

[Viicos]

I was mislead thinking Poetry was not used (and actually it might not be, since setup.py metadata are still relevant)

Build frontend tools such as pip will make use the build-system.build-backend key if present in pyproject.toml. So doing a plain pip install . locally will use poetry to install it (if the key is not present, build frontends should default to setuptools iirc).

However, the CI doesn't seem to handle packaging and publishing (as you mentioned), so maintainers might be forcing setuptools to be used in some way.

The metadata and packaging configuration would probably benefit from a large cleanup. We couldn't really do it in our fork to avoid merge conflicts

[deronnax]

Agreed. I will do all these cleanup if the maintainer comes back

[pitbulk]

@deronnax, Maintainer here, what do you need?

[deronnax]

You direction to do some clean up work. Do you use the setup.py or Poetry to manage dependencies and build a release?

[pitbulk]

To build the release I use setup.py

python setup.py sdist bdist_wheel upload -r pypi

or

python setup.py sdist bdist_wheel
twine upload dist/<package_name_and_version>-py3-none-any.whl

[sergei-maertens]

But the setup.py is not picked up for local development due to the presence of pyproject.toml which specifies poetry as build tool.

In the current situation you need to make the same change to setup.py and pyproject.toml (e.g. when specifying new or newer dependencies, as that's how I found this out).

Please pick one method.

[pitbulk]

When I was porting from setup.py to pyproject.toml I experienced some challenges, that why I ended with both.

You can read this thread where people experienced similar issues:
https://discuss.python.org/t/user-experience-with-porting-off-setup-py/37502/18

[Viicos]

I can give it a shot if you are ok with it?

[deronnax]

I'll let @Viicos do the work on his PR.