[Distutils] Finishing PEP 345

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Dec 22 02:13:56 CET 2009

> FYI. This Distutils-SIG thread is about proposing PEP 345 and impacts PyPI.
> So if there's anything that look suspicious to anyone, please join the
> discussion at Distutils-SIG

In a number of places (Requires-Dist, Requires-Python), comma-separated
lists of version constraints are used. The PEP needs to specify what the
collective constraint means that gets specified.

Most likely, the intended meaning is that the constraints get
and-combined, in which case the example

Requires-Python: 2.5, 2.6

is non-sensical (no Python release meets that constraint). (else,
if it was meant to denote or-combination, then ">1.0, !=1.3.4, <2.0"
would be non-sensical, specifying no constrating at all)

For the Copyright field, I'm not sure what the purpose of it is.
If it is what I think it is (listing attribution), it should probably
be specified as "multiple use".

For Documentation, I think the entire field must be reconsidered.
If it is really meant to be reStructuredText, then the spec should
explain how to do leading spaces/indentation.

For Platform, I fail to see the point of supporting both multiple
use, and comma-separated lists.

For Metadata-Version, I think formally, the only legal value according
to the PEP is 1.2. If 1.0 and 1.1 are also conforming values, the PEP
should elaborate what it means to put a different version number into
the field.


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list