[Distutils] version scheme: a case for dropping ".devNNN" and ".postNNN"

Trent Mick trentm at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 23:44:23 CEST 2009

>> - when I specify a dependency against a particular build_number of a
>> package, I don't care if that build_number happened to be a released
>> version or a dev version
> However, to specify that dependency you're going to need a way to represent
> the build number as part of a requirement string, at which point we're right
> back where we started.

Perhaps. I'm wondering if the separation of "version" (does not
include the ".dev") and "build_number" helps clear up some of the

If "1.2.3.dev456"-type version strings don't appear in packages
released to PyPI, then the job of the downstream RPM/.deb packagers is
easier (they then don't need to care about the spelling of the version
with the build number). Have a "RationalReleaseVersion()" that is just
the non-dev part of the proposal.

Yes, as you say, the requirement/dependency fields (presumably they
will be strings) need a way to spell the "build_number" part. However,
the large set of setup.py authors that don't need to understand or use
dependency strings don't need to see that.


Trent Mick
trentm at gmail.com

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list