[Distutils] Upcoming changes to PEP 426/440

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Jul 4 13:00:19 CEST 2013

On 4 Jul 2013 18:52, "Vinay Sajip" <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > * "install": the installation specifier for the dependency
> > * "extra": as per the current PEP (for conditional dependencies)
> > * "environment": as per the current PEP (for conditional dependencies)
> >
> > 4. The "install" subfield is compulsory, the other two are optional
> > (as now, using either of the latter creates a "conditional
> > dependency", while dependency declarations with only the "install"
> > subfield are unconditional)
> >
> > 5. An installation specifier is what PEP 426 currently calls a
> > dependency specifier: the "name [extras] (constraints)" format. They
> > will get their own top level section (similar to the existing Extras
> > and Environment markers sections)
> Is there a particular benefit of the install subfield being a single
> installation specifier, as opposed to a list of such specifiers? It's
> perhaps neither here nor there for machine-processed metadata, but I
> this metadata would have human readers too. Not using a list would lead to
> more verbose metadata.

Hmm, I guess as long as it's consistent, the only difference when
processing is list.append vs list.extend.

There's a little extra work when serialising to group like entries
together, but I'm OK with that (and that would be a SHOULD rather than a
MUST anyway).

If I don't hear a good argument against it, I'll make that field a list.

> Regards,
> Vinay Sajip
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130704/b51bb739/attachment.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list