[Catalog-sig] PyCon sprint for PEPs 314 and 243?
bob at redivi.com
Mon Jan 3 00:13:56 CET 2005
On Jan 2, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Richard Jones wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:48 pm, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> I'm interested in helping this along. Similar to your revisions with
>> PEP-243, here's what I think should happen to PEP 314:
>> [python module names only as provides/requires]
> This seems reasonable to me. In particular:
>> Requires should not be arbitrary.
> I really can't see a reasonable situation where anything *other* than
> could be the case (racking my brain to try to think of *any* python
> module /
> package which could be replaced with another, retaining API
> The current list of changes to PEP 314 version 1.15 are:
> * Platform and License need to be altered to indicate they take text
> describing the platform/full license text in the case where there is no
> appropriate Classifier.
> * Requires/Provides need to specify *only* python package or module
> Abstract names are not considered useful.
> * Conflicts, on the other hand, probably *does* need to specify actual
> distutils package names, rather than python package names or module
> names, as
> the latter can be determined from the Provides field.
I'm unconvinced that Conflicts does anything useful at all. It's
obvious that installing two packages with the same module name is a
conflict (probably an upgrade). Anything else couldn't possibly
conflict in any concrete way in the same way that Provides and Requires
can't mean anything useful without specifying actual module names. I
say get rid of Conflicts altogether.
More information about the Catalog-sig