Paul Moore

I'm confused. But it's not that important. I suggest that we avoid speculating until someone proposes a precise mechanism that a PEP 517 backend can use to signal there's a...

Ah, OK. As I said, I'm not familiar with the warnings infrastructure. Sorry, this is indeed basically what you were suggesting from the start - my bad. Arguably, this is...

No. See [the wheel spec](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary-distribution-format/#installing-a-wheel-distribution-1-0-py32-none-any-whl). All files in a wheel are installed to one of the distribution-specified purelib/platlib/headers/scripts/data locations.

As that's integrating with the Unix system, and isn't expected to work on (for example) Windows, I'd say you should be building an RPM or a DEB for it, not...

Python's packaging ecosystem isn't designed to install Unix system files, that's what I'm trying to say. It never was - I'm not 100% sure how distutils/setuptools is relevant here (they...

> FWIW, there's plenty of software out there which subclasses the install command to write arbitrary files. Interesting. Presumably that software would need to be installed using `setup.py` (or pip)...

I'm not 100% sure what tests we're actually planning on doing, but we could build virtualenvs by using `--no-setuptools` and doing all of our installs "by hand". Or by putting...

On reflection, this probably doesn't need a new classmethod - simply allowing construction from an iterator of `Specifier` instances should be fine. I've created https://github.com/pypa/packaging/pull/777 implementing this.

Yes, this was prompted by https://github.com/pypa/packaging/issues/760, because a specifier like `>1.0,

> I'm not 100% sure what the packaging library's policy is on whether this matters when checking if a version satisfies a specifier. OK, so I tested: ``` >>> SpecifierSet(">=1.0.0a1,>1.1.0").contains("1.3.0a1")...