On Jun 30, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Gabriel de Perthuis <g2p.code@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:46 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Jun 30, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Gabriel de Perthuis <g2p.code@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:46:51 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
On Jun 30, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Gabriel de Perthuis <g2p.code@gmail.com> wrote:
So it would prefer that dev and test be extras with well known names, so that dev, test, and any other extras define dependencies with a minimum of ambiguity and without the need for a second level of qualifiers.
"Well known names" is way more ambiguous than a top level field. It's easy to have minor variances across various packages, "test" vs "tests", "docs", "doc", "documentation". Both top level and "kind" share the fact that there is a limited number of allowed names, which makes it simple to validate that the same name is being used everywhere (because anything outside of those limited numbers are rejected).
These well-known names would also have some tool support. Something like `pip install-dev` would be sufficient.
But when defining them, it's very easy to accidentally use "tests" instead of "test".
A lint tool can warn about these names, and a PyPI server could even block them for new-style packages.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Or use a separate field (either the name, or the aforementioned "kind" field) and remove all ambiguity from the concept and remove the need to have a lint tool or guess what the person might mean. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA