2013/5/31 Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip@yahoo.co.uk>
There have been security issues with YAML (which bit the Rails community not
so long ago) because it allows the construction of arbitrary objects. So it
may be that YAML is not the best format for scenarios where tools read YAML
from untrusted sources.

please read my post again: i specifically mention that issue and a possible solution. i’m just a little annoyed that you skipped that paragraph and attack a strawman now. but not too annoyed :)

The PEP defines the metadata format as a Python dictionary - the serialising
of metadata to a specific file format seems a secondary consideration. It's
quite possible that some of the packaging tools that use the new metadata
will support different serialisation mechanisms, perhaps including YAML, but
ISTM that having YAML in the stdlib is orthogonal to the PEP.

but in the future, package metadata won’t be specified in the setup.py anymore, so we need a metadata file (like setup.cfg would have been for distutils2). and we write those per hand. the involved metadata corresponds exactly to the one mentioned here, so what do you think that the format of that metadata file will be?

Do you have a specific YAML implementation in mind? I thought that the
front-runner was PyYAML, but in my initial experiments with PyYAML and
packaging metadata, I found bugs in the implementation (which I have
reported on the PyYAML tracker) which made me switch to JSON.

i didn’t think of any, but i don’t think any available one would meet the proposed goals of a secure API (like i said in the paragraph you skipped) and a generator-based implementation/API.

Regards,
Vinay Sajip

regards,
phil