[Distutils] PEP 426: proposed change to extension fields + entry points

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 16:16:55 CET 2013

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm probably the only one but I'm not a fan of JSON with all the extra "
>> > marks compared to the venerable, lovely, flatter and much easier to edit
>> > Key: value format.
>> I don't really care that much about human readability of the raw
>> metadata files, I care a lot more about ease of interoperability for
>> automated tools, and ease of display for generic tools that may not
>> understand the semantics. I also care about the standard format being
>> amenable to the publication of metadata through TUF's JSON based
>> infrastructure.
> When I see that file I've always thought "why aren't we writing these by
> hand instead of through setup.py and then validating that they are correct
> with a tool?" Bento's file sortof follows this logic. I can accept JSON.

That's a similar question to the one the distutils2 folks asked before
coming up with setup.cfg. The reason I think we need to assume a
generated file rather than a hand-edited one is because, for the vast
majority of Python users, for the foreseeable future, their static
metadata is going to be generated by running a setup.py file. For most
others, it's going to be generated from either setup.cfg or from


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list