[Catalog-sig] New fields in the Metadata for PyPI

Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 19:17:59 CET 2009

On 2009-12-02 11:43 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

> While more structured meta-data is generally better than less,
> I wonder why we have to add URLs for all these things.
> The home page of a project will usually provide the URLs
> in some form already and if there is no home page, the
> long description can be used.
> A valid argument for the duplication would be to provide the user
> with faster and more standardized access to those resources.
> OTOH, they don't really mean anything for computerized consumption.

I believe it was my comment in the PyPI comments thread on python-dev that 
inspired this idea. I suggested the Repository-Browse-URL as a way for PyPI 
users to very quickly (with one click) view the source code of the project in 
order to evaluate it quickly. Personally, I get a much better idea of the 
suitability of a project from a quick browse of the code than short comments and 
ratings. Having it as a separate item in the official metadata encourages 
authors to make it available and allows PyPI to put it in a standard place that 
PyPI users can navigate to quickly.

The Bug-Tracker-URL was not in my suggestion, but the logic supporting it is 
somewhat similar. Some authors want to make sure that bug reports that might 
otherwise incorrectly go in the PyPI comments go to the specified bug tracker 

Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list