On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM, R. David Murray
It also allows for typo detection, which automatically interpreting prefix strings as extensions names would not.
+1 on retaining the explicit extension field, mainly for the cross-validation benefits (including easily checking which extension syntax is used by a module). However, also +1 on using "/" as the extension separator to avoid ambiguity in field names, as well as restoring the explicit requirement that metadata entries use valid RFC 822 metasyntax. If the precise rules can be articulated as a 3.3 email module policy, so much the better. I've now pushed Daniel's latest draft as PEP 426. I added the following section on "Metadata Files", which restores some background info on the overall file format that went AWOL in v1.2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Metadata Files ============== The syntax defined in this PEP is for use with Python distribution metadata files. This file format is a single set of RFC-822 headers parseable by the ``rfc822`` or ``email`` modules. The field names listed in the `Fields`_ section are used as the header names. There are two standard locations for these metadata files: * the ``PKG-INFO`` file included in the base directory of Python source distribution archives (as created by the distutils ``sdist`` command) * the ``dist-info/METADATA`` files in a Python installation database, as described in PEP 376. Other tools involved in Python distribution may choose to record this metadata in additional tool-specific locations (e.g. as part of a binary distribution archive format). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as I know, the sdist archive format isn't actually defined anywhere beyond "archives like those created by the distutils sdist command". Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia