On 4 May 2016 at 19:39, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 16:03, Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> The edits I'd expect to make if the conclusions I suggested in
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028437.html
>> are adopted are:
>>
>>  - change to a Python API
>>  - BFDL call on the file format and name
>>
>> There is no need to issue a new sdist thing, because sdists today are
>> *already* documented across PEPs 241, 314 and 345.
>
> I already +1'ed using a Python API, but on the file name & format
> side, we have the following candidates and prior art floating around:
>
> pypa.json in PEP 516
> pypackage.json in PEP 517
> pydist.json in PEP 426
> METADATA (Key: Value) in sdists and wheels
> WHEEL (Key: Value) in wheels
>
> My impression is that we're generally agreed on wanting to move from
> Key:Value to JSON as the baseline for interoperability formats, so my
> suggestion is to use the name "pybuild.json".
>
> The problem I have with pypa/pypackage/pydist is that they're all too
> broad - we're moving towards an explicitly multi-stage pipeline (tree
> -> sdist -> wheel -> installed) and additional metadata gets added at
> each step. The "pybuild.json" metadata specifically covers how to get
> from a source tree or sdist to a built wheel file, so I think it makes
> sense to use a name that reflects that.

I don't think we have anything resembling consensus on that pipeline idea.

pybuild.json would be fine as a name though :).

-Rob


--
Robert Collins <rbtcollins@hpe.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig