On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ian Bicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
Marc-André Lemburg gave me a key points about the static metadata discussions we have (wether its PEP 390 or around it)
He said that the important thing was to have the context-dependant markers in PKG-INFO, and that having in described in setup.cfg or in setup.py by any way is not the important thing. And he is right !
Excellent, this resolves my own concern about the discussion as well. Putting this in PKG-INFO is something I can concretely make use of, regardless of how it is generated.
PKG-INFO is already somewhat flawed as a format for holding the data, in particularly maintaining indentation for Description. I think adding a general "...; <condition>" places another syntactic constraint, where no field can have ";" in it. Ideally I'd like to see both cases resolved. And certainly I don't want to end up in a place where weird bugs emerge if I put ";" in a field (especially since many are free text).
The only fields where I see this syntax making any sense are the "requirements" ones:
- - The ones specified in PEP 314: Requires, Provides, Obsoletes - - The new ones proposed in PEP 345[1]: Requires-Dist, Provides-Dist, Obsoletes-Dist
Yes, that would have to be a subset of the fields, and ";" makes PKG-INFO still RFC 232 compatible. Tarek