[Distutils] migration path for entry_points?

[Nick Coghlan]

On 1 Jan 2014 06:58, "Daniel Holth" <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's nice to have that split up into lots of more focused documents.

Yeah, I was really happy with how breaking things up into multiple
extensions worked out.

I'm still pondering the question of whether or not to aim for the updated
installation database format (with a check for an sqlite DB in each path
entry  before looking directly at the metadata files) in the metadata 2.0
time frame.

It's a potentially preferable approach to speeding up runtime lookups over
extracting additional per-distribution data files.

Maybe it's worth at least defining that as a *goal* and then deciding the
time frame for when we want to get there?

> The comment I have is that I think entry points sometimes have
> multiple values with the same name (a list or multidict instead of a
> simple dict) although I'm not sure how common that is...

If the current format allows repeated keys with different values, we may
need to allow lists as values in addition to strings in the PEP 459
approach.

> Tools should just do automatic conversion of entry_points.txt to the
> new metadata format when .dist-info is in use.

Yep, as with other fields, my aim is to create a format that can be derived
from the existing setuptools metadata. That way, PyPI can publish it even
for projects that only upload metadata using the current setuptools formats.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ok, so PEP459 has exports:
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0459/#the-exports-extension
> > and distlib seems to be implementing them.
> >
> > and "exports" seem to be entry points 2.0.
> >
> > so theoretically, when PEP426/PEP459 becomes live....
> >
> > what does that mean for setuptools-based projects? (I understand that we
> > might not have a clear idea now, but just trying to narrow down the
> > possibilities)
> >
> > 1)  the setuptools "entry_points" keyword (and pkg_resources api) gets
> > re-implemented to understand PEP459 exports?
> > or
> > 2) "entry_points" keeps the old implementation, and possibly tools are
> > written to handle the old and new metadata?
> > or
> > 3) "entry_points" are stranded, and consumers have to rewrite setup.py
files
> > to use some new keyword that understands PEP459
> > or
> > 4) something altogether different...
> >
> > as for why I'm asking, pip itself is considering command extensions, so
it's
> > a direct practical matter for us.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20140101/d484c68f/attachment.html>