[Distutils] Review of latest draft of PEP 426 (Python package etadata v1.3)

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 15:28:27 CET 2013

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2013 12:29, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The specific intent of adding Version-Scheme is to relax the version
> > numbering requirement from "you *must* use PEP 386 version numbering"
> > to "you *should* use PEP 386 version numbering for new projects, but
> > if you're already using a different versioning scheme, here's how to
> > indicate the scheme you're actually using".
> So given Vinay's comment that "legacy" is sufficiently flexible to
> encompass current schemes (which I haven't verified, but I trust
> Vinay's assertions on such things) then why not just have "legacy" and
> "pep386" and be done with it? If someone wants to propose semver (or
> any other scheme that has thus far not been debated) let them raise a
> new PEP.
> I think that's basically what everyone is saying, it's just that
> mentioning semver muddied the waters

I agree. I am mostly trying to do binary packaging after all.

The names will be "setuptools" and "pep386" referring to the sort method
inside pkg_resources and the pep 386 method.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130129/c4122499/attachment.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list