[Distutils] Removing the aspirational aspects of PEP 426

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 19:52:05 EDT 2015

On 28 Oct 2015 11:39, "Nathaniel Smith" <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to
do is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build system
improvements, and defer everything else (e.g. JSON-LD, SPDX, richer
dependency semantics, etc) to a future metadata 3.0 proposal (or
potentially metadata extensions, or 2.x format updates).
> I think PEP 426 is actually orthogonal to these proposals. AFAICT, the
only reason Robert's PEP as written requires PEP 426 is that he needs a
standard serializable format to list dependencies... but he actually
defines such a format about 10 lines above for the static
bootstrap-requirements key, i.e. a list of specifier strings. So it
actually makes more sense to use that for dynamic requirements too for
internal consistency, and leave PEP 426 out of it.

If you can avoid blocking on metadata 2.0 entirely, that's even better :)


> -n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151029/69443cff/attachment.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list