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

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Thu Dec 3 00:46:47 CET 2009

Robert Kern wrote:
> 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 instead.

As a user, I like the idea of having a few links staring me in the face 
in a standardized place and order, instead of having to possibly 'wade 
through' an idiosyncratic home page. 3 or 4 should be enough.

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list