[Distutils] Link to lib missing in PEP: FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

[Nick Coghlan]

On 17 November 2015 at 23:43, Thomas Güttler
<guettliml at thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.11.2015 um 13:48 schrieb Donald Stufft:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com
>>> <mailto:njs at pobox.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2015 11:57 PM, "Thomas Güttler" <guettliml at thomas-guettler.de
>>> <mailto:guettliml at thomas-guettler.de>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > The job of a dependency is to enable tools like pip [#pip]_ to find
>>> > > the right
>>> > > package to install.
>>> >
>>> > My worries: AFAIK pip is not a library.
>>> >
>>> > I don't want to re-implement code to handle this pep.
>>> >
>>> > I would like to re-use.
>>> >
>>> > But AFAIK pip is not a library.
>>> >
>>> > I am stupid and don't know how to proceed.
>>> >
>>> > Please tell me what to do.
>>>
>>> Presumably there will be a dependency parser added to the 'packaging'
>>> library, which already exists as a standard
>>> place to stick stuff like this, so you'll just use that. (E.g. it's what
>>> pip uses for PEP 440 version parsing today.)
>>>
>>> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/packaging
>
> Nice, a re-usable library :-)
>
> Since I don't see a reason for two implementations, I think the PEP should
> provide a link to the implementation.

No, it shouldn't, as the whole point of these PEPs is to get away from
implementation defined behaviours. If somebody can't implement their
own library from scratch using just the material in the PEP, then the
PEP is incomplete.

However, it may be worth pointing to "packaging" from
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/current/ for the sake of folks
implementing their own tooling (or adapting existing tools). At the
moment, I believe the only reference is from the full project listing
at https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/projects/#packaging

Regards,
Nick.

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