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

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 15:09:54 CET 2013

Sounds like a :: and a "If not specified, pep386 should be assumed" are the
only things missing from this PEP.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Correct. The desire is still to migrate to a more formal versioning
> scheme, hence PEP 386 by default if no Version-Scheme is specified.
> However, I don't want "but what if PEP 386 doesn't handle my
> pre/post/whatever release naming correctly" to be a potential blocker
> for migration the way it is with v1.2 of the metadata spec.
> Their is only one minor difference that I can find between how PEP386
> handles
> versions and how pkg_resources does. IMO We should moidfy PEP386 to
> match what pkg_resources did for that case and then as far as I can tell
> PEP386 will be a strict subset of pkg_resources.
> FWIW anyways
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130131/0ae8304a/attachment.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list