[Distutils] RFC : Version comparison

P.J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Thu May 14 18:22:30 CEST 2009

At 10:19 AM 5/14/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>from a setuptools user point of view, the benefit I can see is that
>they will have better
>version numbers

Better how?  That was my question.  I personally find the common 
version patterns in use (e.g.  '-' and '-r' for post-releases) less 
clunky and easier to read than 'post'.  I also don't care for '.' in 
front of dev and post.  So, I don't see the changes as all "better" 
from a readability POV.

That's not to say it's a bad thing, if it gives other benefits.  But 
it has not been stated what the benefits are supposed to be.

>that will comply with a documented standard, that is

This isn't actually a change; setuptools also has a documented standard.

>usable and understandable by os packagers for example.

I agree that a canonical form is useful.  However, if that canonical 
form can be generated from their existing version numbers, then why 
should they bother changing?

That's the open question, IOW.

>Now I suppose setuptools will have to propose both for some time,

I don't see why.  AFAICT, RationalVersion is a strict subset of the 
syntax supported by setuptools, and most setuptools versions in use 
should be convertible.

>But what I am scared of is : who will work on setuptools side ? can
>you bless someone to do the
>work when we agree on a common roadmap ?

I don't see that there is any work *to* do in setuptools core, since 
RationalVersion is a strict subset, and we have setup-argument 
validation providers already.  I.e., anyone can make a plugin that 
validates or converts a setup(version="...") string, put it on 
sys.path, and force canonical versions.

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list