bpo-41282: (PEP 632) Deprecate distutils.sysconfig (partial implementation of the PEP)#23142
Conversation
70fe4be to
7d6d0bb
Compare
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days |
|
This PR is waiting for a final decision about the PEP. |
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
|
The PEP is accepted now. |
7d6d0bb to
51c232c
Compare
|
The pep is accepted so this PR is no longer a draft. Also, a note about the deprecation already exists here so I think it's enough to mention it once. |
|
Can you add a NEWS entry? |
|
News entry added. |
|
I have no other comments, so unless someone else spots something I'll get this merged before the next alpha release. Thanks, @frenzymadness! |
Thank you! AFAIK the next alpha should be released tomorrow. Will we include this in it? |
8d73015 to
cf2bb35
Compare
…edtogether with the module.
and deprecated them.
cf2bb35 to
be181b6
Compare
|
I've rebased the commits and fixed a conflict. The failing test is not related to this change. Could you please merge this? |
|
@encukou see the last commit and PTAL. |
|
And... Could someone also relabel this, to remove the "DO-NOT-MERGE" label here? :) |
Co-authored-by: Éric Araujo <[email protected]>
|
@zooba could you please take a look at this PR? The time of the first beta release is approaching. |
|
The patch looks good to me, it was seen by many people and I see no objections. I'll merge and watch the buildbots. |
|
I think there is a regression in |
This change:
distutils.sysconfigintosysconfigwhile keeping the original functionality anddistutils.sysconfigas deprecatedCommits basically describe my progress step by step. Some discussions already happened in my private PR.
PEP 632 is still a draft so I'm opening this PR the same. PEP proposal and discussion.
https://bugs.python.org/issue41282