[Catalog-sig] adding trove classifiers?

Kevin Dangoor dangoor at gmail.com
Wed Jan 4 18:51:05 CET 2006

I personally agree with what Phillip is suggesting below. So,

1) Who decides that we should "make it so"? Do we just start
submitting tickets to set up classifiers?
2) What would be a good minimum number of packages before a classifier
is warranted? 5? 10?

There are now two TurboGears plugins on PyPI. Once 0.9 is released, I
expect there will be quite a few more, and I'd like to stay ahead of
the curve on this.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com>
Date: Dec 30, 2005 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Catalog-sig] adding trove classifiers?
To: Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com>
Cc: catalog-sig at python.org

At 11:24 PM 12/29/2005 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>I actually had thought "Framework :: Zope2" would be good, and kind of
>marks it as something particular to cheeseshop (and thus to Python).

+1 for a "Framework" hierarchy for plugins/extenders/applications.  Flat is
better than nested, especially when it's something you have to type out in
your setup script.  ;)

I would also suggest that some criteria be established for determining when
a new category should be listed.  For example, a certain minimum number of
packages *already* registered on PyPI whose authors request the
classification.  I don't think we should pre-populate the hierarchy
beforehand; it should be strictly on an as-requested basis.

Catalog-sig mailing list
Catalog-sig at python.org

Kevin Dangoor
Author of the Zesty News RSS newsreader

email: kid at blazingthings.com
company: http://www.BlazingThings.com
blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com

More information about the Catalog-sig mailing list