[Distutils] PEP 426 updated (with more than you ever wanted to know about version schemes)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 23:52:58 CET 2013

On 13 Feb 2013 02:50, "PJ Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren at mac.com>
> > The hook could be one or two new header fields in the PKG-INFO
> > file, with a PEP that describes those keys and how the builder is
invoked and what
> > it is supposed to do. Am I understanding this correctly?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > Extension: pepYYY-builder
> > pepYYY-builder/dist: bento (>=1.1)
> > pepYYY-builder/build: bento.builder:run
> For simplicity's sake and decoupling/DRY, I'd say the bento project
> should be the one who'd include the 'build' field specifying the entry
> point.  The depending projects should only have to say they're using
> bento as a builder.  That allows bento to refactor without breaking
> depending projects.
> If Vinay's distlib supports entry points and will be in the stdlib,
> that'd be even better, since it would avoid having to create Yet
> Another Module+Attribute String Parser And Dynamic Importer.  ;-)
> (Not to mention documenting its spec and teaching it to people.)

Indeed, there is much hand-waving involved in my current "where would I
like us to be in a couple of years?" Archiver/Builder/Installer scheme.

The immediate focus is on splitting installation out from archiving and
building. Splitting archiving from building is going to require more work
and isn't especially urgent - I just wanted to be clear on my current
position after Marcus raised the topic.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130213/f3d348d9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list