[Distutils] PEP 426 is now the draft spec for distribution metadata 2.0

[Chris Jerdonek]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense. Even 1.2 has maintainer. It probably wouldn't be too intrusive
> to spit out a few more fields in distutils. I don't know about pypi which
> usually gets metadata as a dictionary.

This issue in PyPI's bug tracker suggests that PyPI already supports
it if distutils were updated (but I haven't confirmed):

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3396924&group_id=66150&atid=513503

--Chris

>
> On Feb 23, 2013 10:51 PM, "Chris Jerdonek" <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Maintainer (optional)
>> > ---------------------
>> >
>> > A string containing the maintainer's name at a minimum; additional
>> > contact information may be provided.
>> >
>> > Note that this field is intended for use when a project is being
>> > maintained by someone other than the original author:  it should be
>> > omitted if it is identical to ``Author``.
>>
>> I'm wondering whether Metadata 2.0 can help in rectifying the fact
>> that the contents of the Author field are blown away by the contents
>> of the Maintainer field when used with current tools (e.g. distutils,
>> Distribute/setuptools, PyPI) as described in issues 16403 and 16108,
>> etc ([1], [2]).  If backwards compatibility is the issue, maybe
>> Metadata 2.0 can help by providing the way forward.
>>
>> [1] http://bugs.python.org/issue16403
>> [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue16108
>>
>> --Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig