[Catalog-sig] Re: [Distutils] PEP 241 draft
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:02:12 -0500
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:45:25PM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Developers may not provide their own "METADATA" file. The "sdist"
More fascist; I like it! Will add it...
>Questions: Is it expected this name corresponds either to the name of the
>package which is imported, or the package top-level directory name? If so,
I don't think so; consider "Sketch", which may not actually
have a Sketch package.
>what do we do about alternative packages that provide different implementations
>of the same functionality? I suppose we could reasonably expect to make
>use of "import urllib2 as urllib" to take care of that.
>Does this include platform name, platform version, and architecture? Like
>redhat-7.0-x86, windows-nt-hppa, etc?
I wish I knew! This is the last remaining XXX in the PEP. Thoughts?
> Group (such as "Database", "Network/SMTP", etc)?
> Provides (maybe "urllib2" would provide "urllib"?)
> Requires (dependences -- RPM for example has multiple lines of the
> form "Requires: initscripts >= 3.25", "Requires: openssl >= 0.9.4")
I'm lukewarm; can we decide on syntax for all of those fields?
(Semantics can wait; as long as users can put 'Group: blah', we can
figure out what the groups should be later.) Can
Freely-Redistributable be derived from the License field? (Side
effect: discourages using your own Open Source license). Will
comma-separated values be sufficient for the last 3?