[Distutils] RFC : Version comparison
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Thu May 14 22:43:25 CEST 2009
2009/5/14 P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com>:
> 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'.
Removing the usage of "-" is important for debian packagers for example.
> 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.
True, we didn't post that, we just talked about it during Pycon,
Maybe Matthias and Toshio can write down a detailed list of the issues
with setuptools version system, to make them clearer.
>> 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
e.g. switch to scrict=True at some point.
>> 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.
Ok that's great then. (the svn support would need the same extendability)
More information about the Distutils-SIG