Modernizing the packaging of the library

[Zeitsperre]

Hi,

I'm wondering if it would be alright if I went and rewrote the packaging, testing, and linting configurations using the new TOML format (pyproject.toml) and removed several redundant files from the repository (requirements*.txt, MANIFEST.in, etc.); Linting and other tooling changes would help with potential security and code optimization issues.

If possible, I'd also ask if I can go about replacing setuptools with something a little simpler: flit/flit-core does more than we need here (and is also available on Debian: https://packages.debian.org/source/forky/x32/flit).

[fmigneault]

👍 for the requirements, MANIFEST, etc. switch to pyproject.toml

❓ For flit, I am not sure if it supports some compilation features that could be needed by other packages that use the default setuptools anyway? Quick google search showed that it does not support C/C++/Rust. Is that problematic? Maybe not as critical with #699 if such requirements (GDAL, NetCDF, GeoTiff, etc.?) are pushed downstream.

[gschwind]

Thanks

About flit, I would not use it. Installing/building package is not done often, thus having something slow is not a big issue. Moreover, having something that is main stream, i.e. setuptools, is often easier to maintain because it has a lot of support.

[Zeitsperre]

The build requirements of GDAL and NetCDF should be defined in the build-backends of those projects, but that might not be the case for older versions/packaging standards. I don't mind staying with setuptools, but I don't think we need something that comprehensive.

I won't die on this hill, but as an FYI, flit is a PyPA officially-supported project, with development and maintenance financing (https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/key_projects/#pypa-projects).

Opening a pull request soon.