As an application developer, I really stand with Tarek here.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:07:30 +0100, Tarek Ziadé firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
2009/12/23 "Martin v. Löwis" email@example.com:
I think we want something stronger than that since they were not really used by the community and removed and replaced by something better. Using them should raise a warning so developers abandon them, so it would be "don't use 1.1 anymore"
Yes. But that is a software warning message to be implemented within the installation software. The important thing is what is in the metadata.
I am just describing the needs and the end user PoV with the reference implementation that happens to be used by *all* tools out there.
That's good. That's what we need right now.
So that will happen in the code of course, but we need the PEP to state clearly wether metadata 1.0 and 1.1 should be dropped by implementations or not.
It would be also incompatible with existing consumers that expect a Python package to have an earlier version of the metadata. Dropping 1.0 may be fine though - but again, this is out of scope here.
That's a software implementation issue. Not a metadata issue.
I don't understand why you are saying this is out of scope. Shouldn't we state clearly in the PEP that 1.0 and 1.1 should not be used in the
I agree with you Tarek.
Whilst we can suggest that the implementation be done in certain ways. The PEP in it's current form seems good enough an I am hoping it will go through soon.
Three more years of deliberation and niggling on this PEP will have more of an adverse affect than a positive effect. It was started in 2005 and that seems like a long time to hold things up. There's always time for a 1.3 version in two years time if there is an unstoppable problem here - but I can't see any.
As an application developer, I have to side with Tarek. Lets get this finalised.