[Distutils] [RFC] Recentering the static metadata need : PKG-INFO
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 01:11:58 CEST 2009
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Ian Bicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marc-André Lemburg gave me a key points about the static metadata
>>> discussions we have (wether its PEP 390 or around it)
>>> He said that the important thing was to have the context-dependant
>>> markers in PKG-INFO, and that having in described in
>>> setup.cfg or in setup.py by any way is not the important thing. And he
>>> is right !
>> Excellent, this resolves my own concern about the discussion as well.
>> Putting this in PKG-INFO is something I can concretely make use of,
>> regardless of how it is generated.
>> PKG-INFO is already somewhat flawed as a format for holding the data,
>> in particularly maintaining indentation for Description. I think
>> adding a general "...; <condition>" places another syntactic
>> constraint, where no field can have ";" in it. Ideally I'd like to
>> see both cases resolved. And certainly I don't want to end up in a
>> place where weird bugs emerge if I put ";" in a field (especially
>> since many are free text).
> The only fields where I see this syntax making any sense are the
> "requirements" ones:
> - - The ones specified in PEP 314: Requires, Provides, Obsoletes
> - - The new ones proposed in PEP 345: Requires-Dist, Provides-Dist,
Yes, that would have to be a subset of the fields, and ";" makes
PKG-INFO still RFC 232 compatible.
More information about the Distutils-SIG