If we want to switch, why not meson-python instead? The numpy / scipy / matplotlib ecosystem seems to have gone that way and it's probably a good idea to follow..

If we want to switch, why not meson-python instead? The numpy / scipy / matplotlib ecosystem seems to have gone that way and it's probably a good idea to follow..

TIL, thanks! I think the main reason for using scikit-build-core is that it is what nanobind recommends, and it's used in their examples.

This seems to work fine and is ready for a first look @inducer. I'm not sure what the best way to replace/reimplement the configure.py functionality is.

This seems to work fine and is ready for a first look @inducer. I'm not sure what the best way to replace/reimplement the configure.py functionality is.

What functionality exactly? Generally the configuration can be done in CMakeLists.txt and you can pass it arguments using

pip install . --config-settings='cmake.args=-DSOME_DEFINE=ON;-DOTHER=OFF'

I've pushed the branch to Gitlab to check CI there (added a link to the description for easy access). While main currently doesn't pass on Gitlab either 😢, there are some issues there that might merit a look, particularly the downstream failures.

I've pushed the branch to Gitlab to check CI there (added a link to the description for easy access). While main currently doesn't pass on Gitlab either 😢, there are some issues there that might merit a look, particularly the downstream failures.

I think the 'downstream' Gitlab tests should be fixed now ('examples'/'K40' tests fail with main on Gitlab too), but I don't see a way to retrigger the CI run on Gitlab.

Not sure what's going on with the boxtree test (failure seems to be spurious?), but gitlab tests seem to be fixed.

We can't really get a clean test run on Gitlab because of inducer/pytools#227, so I'll put this on hold until we can.

Nvm, we can, now that the release is yanked.

LGTM. Thanks for making this happen. Let's do it!