[Distutils] Requirent specifiers specified? :)

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 07:47 AM 6/23/2006 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>I think I've explained, and I thought you understood why that wasn't
>adequate for me.

I do - which is why I've promised to make 'specs' a documented attribute, 
so you can do what you need to do.


>I really haven't asked for much. I believe the only changes you've
>made for me so far have been
>bug fixes.  I don't intend to ask for much.  The only non-bug-fix
>change I've asked for
>so far has been to declare public a pre-exiting API so that I can
>implement what I want
>myself.

Yep, already agreed to do that.


>Of course, I've also asked that some semantics be documented.

They are documented, or rather, were documented, in what I believe is a 
sufficient manner, if all you want to do is understand how to read and 
write version requirements.  I'm going to restore that documentation, and 
make more explicit some of the parts you misunderstood, as well as 
expanding it in general.

I don't think, however, that the state-machine specification or 
step-by-step algorithm is appropriate for the API documentation or the 
setuptools manual.  Such information, if it goes anywhere, would be in the 
"formats.txt" file (in the doc/ directory of setuptools 0.7's source tree).

My comments about wishing you'd been involved in the design were simply 
that: I wish you had.  I wish more people had been involved, in 
general.  That's all I meant.