[Catalog-sig] PyCon sprint for PEPs 314 and 243?
richardjones at optushome.com.au
Sun Jan 2 23:47:35 CET 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:48 pm, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> I'm interested in helping this along. Similar to your revisions with
> PEP-243, here's what I think should happen to PEP 314:
> [python module names only as provides/requires]
This seems reasonable to me. In particular:
> Requires should not be arbitrary.
I really can't see a reasonable situation where anything *other* than this
could be the case (racking my brain to try to think of *any* python module /
package which could be replaced with another, retaining API compatibility).
The current list of changes to PEP 314 version 1.15 are:
* Platform and License need to be altered to indicate they take text
describing the platform/full license text in the case where there is no
* Requires/Provides need to specify *only* python package or module names.
Abstract names are not considered useful.
* Conflicts, on the other hand, probably *does* need to specify actual
distutils package names, rather than python package names or module names, as
the latter can be determined from the Provides field.
I've had another glance at DOAP, but I think I'd need to dedicate at least
half a day to it, which I don't have at the moment. Is anyone up to speed
enough with it to give a summary of what we'd need to change to become
compatible? Or does the patch against PyPI:
and its comments capture it all?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Catalog-sig