[Distutils] Deprecate and Block requires/provides

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Oct 17 14:49:57 CEST 2013

On 17 October 2013 21:14, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>> So what I would like to do is "remove" these fields. This would consist
>> of modifying PyPI to return an error code if they are included and hiding
>> the existing data in the UX. It might at a future time also consist of removing
>> the data from the DB all together.
>> What do people think?
> IIUC, you're proposing to error on uploads of distributions with these
> fields set. This wouldn't effect distributions already uploaded and wouldn't
> cause (new) breakage for consumers of those distributions.  The only
> breakage would be for authors uploading the buggy distributions. These
> are the people who could actually address the breakage and who would benefit
> from the breakage by finding out that they have a bug in their distributions.
> This seems an appropriate form of breakage to me, so +1.

Except we can't tell if it's a human or a script doing the upload, and
if it's the latter, we just broke somebody's automated release process
without anything even remotely approaching adequate justification.

PyPI is a trusted service provider: we can nudge people towards better
ways of doing things, but something has to pose an imminent threat to
the integrity of the service itself for us to consider breaking
backwards compatibility.

That's why I suggested following the same approach as Donald did for
reducing the amount of external scanning going on: creating a separate
list of all the projects still using the deprecated metadata, and
encouraging users of those projects to get in touch with the


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

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list