[Distutils] RFC : Version comparison

Tarek Ziadé 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
> convertible.

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 mailing list