On 29 May 2017 at 04:05, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
> [...]
> 1. Using the {package-name}-{package-version}.dist-info in the
> get_wheel_metadata() metadata is a mistake I think. In pip currently we have
> a bug we have not yet been able to track down because there is nothing
> systematically preventing both foobar-1.0.dist-info and foobar-2.0.distinfo
> from existing side by side in a build directory (or inside a wheel for that
> matter). Thus I think this naming scheme is a nuisance and we shouldn’t
> propagate it any further. I would just use something like DIST-INFO/ which
> will completely side step this issue. The only reason I can think of to use
> the current scheme is to make it easier to shutil.copytree it into the
> wheel, but handling that case is trivial.

The rationale for this is to leave the door open to in the future
allowing the same sdist to build multiple wheels. [...]

For get_wheel_metadata() in particular there are several options
though... we could call it DIST-INFO/ and then later declare that
DIST-INFO2/, DIST-INFO3/, etc. are also valid and pip will look at all
of them.

{package-name}.dist-info might also be reasonable, both here and in
actual installs... [...]

Wasn't there a thread here some time ago about switching from:
 - `{package-name}-{package-version}.dist-info`


 - `{package-name}.dist-info`

in all tools?

(while accepting the old format, for old, already built or already installed wheels, of course)

If I remember correctly, there wasn't any complaints about doing this (multi-version installs where a setuptools/egg-info thing anyway and wouldn't be affected by this), and it's perfectly compatible with building multiple wheels from a single source package.

What was needed to move forward with this change?