On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 18:14, Christopher Barker email@example.com wrote:
I agree here -- I think what needs to be official is what is In an installed package/distribution -- not how it gets there. But I do think the standard approach should be easy to do, even without special tools.
That's already standardised. See https://packaging.python.org/specifications/recording-installed-packages/ It describes how all the package (technically "distribution") metadata gets stored, and where.
What it doesn't do, is make any statements about what should go in the files that make up that distribution. That's where this PEP differs, as it is specifically looking at that.
Honestly, I don't really know. It *could* be a packaging interoperability standard, but the rules it includes about stdlib modules push it into core python territory.
indeed, and that's actually the point here. However, I suspect that the core devs will strongly rely on PyPA's thoughts on the matter.
As both a core dev and the packaging PEP-delegate, I'll try to avoid holding self-contradictory opinions on the matter ;-)
I suspect the best thing to do would be to check with the SC on their view, and if they want to toss it in my direction, I'm happy to make the decision.
How does one "check with the SC"? A post to python-dev?
I think there's a SC issue tracker - check in the devguide about the lifecycle of a PEP (or ask your PEP sponsor :-))
 Yes, terminology gets confusing. We *tried* to formalise it but people couldn't get used to the distinctions so we gave up and went with the general mood which is to work out what you mean by context.