[Distutils] Towards a simple and standard sdist format that isn't intertwined with distutils
wes.turner at gmail.com
Sat Oct 3 00:26:07 CEST 2015
On Oct 2, 2015 5:18 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> > On October 2, 2015 at 4:24:38 PM, Daniel Holth (dholth at gmail.com) wrote:
> >> > We need to embrace partial solutions and the fine folks who propose
> >> them so the whole packaging ecosystem can have some progress.
> >> PEP 438 may not be a good analogue to adding a new sdist format since
> >> the latter only adds new things that you can do. A new sdist format
> >> will inconvenience a much more limited set of people, mainly
> >> the pip authors and the OS package maintainers.
> > Packaging formats are a bit like HTTP, "move fast and break things"
> > great because anytime you add a new format, you have to support that
> > (or long enough to basically be forever).
> Right: this is why it's important for me to make the case that putting
> full PEP 426 metadata in sdists is not just temporarily inconvenient,
> but actually conceptually the wrong thing to do.
pydist.jsonld would be a helpful metadata file to add to an sdist, as well
URIs to dependencies with rule/constraints in the reified edges
drawn from e.g.
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG