Metadata-Version in PKG-INFO
Hello, This is my first email in distutils-sig mailing list. So I may introduce myself. I am Carlos Tejo, a member of the Semantic Web activity line at CTIC Foundation, a non-profit organization, where I work with a team of research fellows. We are developing an small library [1] in python language, and now we want to release it properly :-) I wonder how I should "write" setup.py in order that setuptools use the parameters of setup() to create a proper PKG-INFO file. Right now, I have a couple of troubles: - How can be configured the version of the metadata (AFAIK, rigth it is always "Metadata-Version: 1.0")? I would like to use version 1.1 (PEP 314. status: final) [2] or version 1.2 (PEP 345. status: draft) [3] - How should be written the "platform" parameter? Regards, ------------------------------------- Carlos Tejo Alonso Research & Development Department CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain] www.fundacionctic.org ------------------------------------- [1] http://rest-in-py.sourceforge.net/ [2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0314/ [3] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Carlos Tejo Alonso <carlos.tejo@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
Hello,
Hello Carlos,
- How can be configured the version of the metadata (AFAIK, rigth it is always "Metadata-Version: 1.0")? I would like to use version 1.1 (PEP 314. status: final) [2] or version 1.2 (PEP 345. status: draft) [3]
If you use the fields mentioned in 1.1, Distutils will automatically set the metadata version in the PKG-INFO for you. That said, we are currently re-thinking this part (see the archive in this mailing list about PEP 345)
- How should be written the "platform" parameter?
What do you need to define ? Most of the time, people use the trove classifiers. Take a look at the Trove classifiers, to see if your platform is not listed there. (under Operating System :: ) http://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=list_classifiers regards Tarek
Regards,
------------------------------------- Carlos Tejo Alonso Research & Development Department CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain] www.fundacionctic.org -------------------------------------
[1] http://rest-in-py.sourceforge.net/ [2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0314/ [3] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
Hello,
- How can be configured the version of the metadata (AFAIK, rigth it is always "Metadata-Version: 1.0")? I would like to use version 1.1 (PEP 314. status: final) [2] or version 1.2 (PEP 345. status: draft) [3]
If you use the fields mentioned in 1.1, Distutils will automatically set the metadata version in the PKG-INFO for you. That said, we are currently re-thinking this part (see the archive in this mailing list about PEP 345)
It's true. It was my fault because I had problems with setup parameters.
- How should be written the "platform" parameter?
What do you need to define ? Most of the time, people use the trove classifiers.
Take a look at the Trove classifiers, to see if your platform is not listed there. (under Operating System :: )
It was also problem of the parameters of the setup ("platform" instead of "platforms") Anyway, thanks for the link. About license classifiers, how can be define that the version of tht LGPL of the package is the version 3? Another issue: Is possible to define more than one author of the package? ------------------------------------- Carlos Tejo Alonso Research & Development Department CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain] www.fundacionctic.org -------------------------------------
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Carlos Tejo Alonso <carlos.tejo@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
Anyway, thanks for the link. About license classifiers, how can be define that the version of tht LGPL of the package is the version 3?
I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I am ccing this request to catalog-sig so they can add it if they think it's wise
Another issue: Is possible to define more than one author of the package?
Well, you can put several names in the author field but just one email in author_email. And this email has to be the one in your PyPI account if you push your package there. Notice that there's also the maintainer field.
------------------------------------- Carlos Tejo Alonso Research & Development Department CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain] www.fundacionctic.org -------------------------------------
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I am ccing this request to catalog-sig so they can add it if they think it's wise
How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3, or as a subclassifier of LGPL? Regards, Martin
2009/4/16 "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>:
I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I am ccing this request to catalog-sig so they can add it if they think it's wise
How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3, or as a subclassifier of LGPL?
Looking at others (Mozilla Public License) I would go for a separate one with the suffix. But what about LGPL 2 and 2.1 (It seems that 2.1 is introduces a lot of changes) ? Maybe "LGPL2+" would be better for the 2.x series (and maybe 2+ includes v3 ?) Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in our Trove classifier. Regards Tarek
Regards, Martin
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
hellos, Is it just me, or are these classifiers not as good as tags? Should people really have to discuss and get approved what tags they put on their software? Seems like a big waste of everyones time, and doesn't result in as good a database. cheers, 2009/4/17 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com>
2009/4/16 "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>:
I don't see it in the list (just LGPL without any version detail), I am ccing this request to catalog-sig so they can add it if they think it's wise
How should this be done? As a separate classifier with the suffix v3, or as a subclassifier of LGPL?
Looking at others (Mozilla Public License) I would go for a separate one with the suffix.
But what about LGPL 2 and 2.1 (It seems that 2.1 is introduces a lot of changes) ?
Maybe "LGPL2+" would be better for the 2.x series (and maybe 2+ includes v3 ?)
Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in our Trove classifier.
Regards Tarek
Regards, Martin
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
Maybe we could ask someone at the FSF so we have the best versions in our Trove classifier.
There is a list [1] of OSI approved licenses. Maybe it could be useful for the trove classifier. ------------------------------------- Carlos Tejo Alonso Research & Development Department CTIC Foundation [Asturias, Spain] www.fundacionctic.org ------------------------------------- [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Carlos Tejo Alonso -
René Dudfield -
Tarek Ziadé