<p dir="ltr">Mostly it seems a bit silly to have so much conversations about parts of the pep that remain unchanged from previously accepted versions...</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 19, 2012 8:33 PM, "Donald Stufft" <<a href="mailto:donald.stufft@gmail.com">donald.stufft@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
So you want to leave metadata in that you think people shouldn't implement?
</div><div><br></div><div>Or you do think people should implement it and the point about it existing</div><div>forever without an implementation is?</div><div><br></div><div>At the very least there needs to be some sort of guidelines as to what</div>
<div>to do with the field in the various states it could be in.</div>
<div></div>
<p style="color:#a0a0a8">On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px">
<span><div><div><div>We are getting along fine too. No tool parses metadata 1.x for package management reasons and provides has existed forever with no implementation. So it is not inconveniencing anyone. I would prefer to leave it alone.</div>
<div><br>Daniel Holth</div><div><br>On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Donald Stufft <<a href="mailto:donald.stufft@gmail.com" target="_blank">donald.stufft@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div>
Other languages seem to get along fine without it. Even the OS
</div><div>managers which have it don't allow it to be used to masquerade</div><div>as another project, only to make generic virtual packages (e.g. "email").</div>
<p style="color:#a0a0a8">On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:</p><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span><div><div><div>Does it really have baggage? I think it is necessary, although it doesn't do favors to the implementer (and has never been implemented). How else is anyone supposed to fork or merge projects?<br>
<br>Daniel Holth</div><div><br>On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:37 PM, PJ Eby <<a href="mailto:pje@telecommunity.com" target="_blank">pje@telecommunity.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Daniel Holth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dholth@gmail.com" target="_blank">dholth@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><div>
I think this PEP is a significant improvement from its predecessor. It represents features like extras (provides-extra) and build requirements (setup-requires-dist) that are in use in the Python community but cannot be represented in older versions of the format, it finally specifies a UTF-8 encoding, removes RFC 822, provides an extension mechanism, and allows the description to be placed in the document payload.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Can we maybe kill Provides-Dist and its associated baggage first, though?<br></div></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>Python-Dev mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:Python-Dev@python.org" target="_blank">Python-Dev@python.org</a></div><div><a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev</a></div>
<div>Unsubscribe: <a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com</a></div></div></div></span>
</div></blockquote><div>
<br>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></span>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>