[Distutils] Second draft of a plan for a new source tree / sdist format

[Ionel Cristian Mărieș]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> When this sdist is built, the resulting wheel MUST have metadata
> which is identical to the metadata present in this file, except that
> any fields with value ``__SDIST_DYNAMIC__`` in the sdist may have
> arbitrary values in the wheel.
>
>     A valid sdist MUST NOT use the ``__SDIST_DYNAMIC__`` mechanism for
> the package name or version (i.e., these must be given statically),
> and these MUST match the {PACKAGE} and {VERSION} of the sdist as
> described above.
>
>     [TBD: do we want to forbid the use of dynamic metadata for any
> other fields? I assume PyPI will enforce some stricter rules at least,
> but I don't know if we want to make that part of the spec, or just
> part of PyPI's administrative rules.]
>

​Unless I misunderstood the core goal of this new sdist (to be able to know
the dependencies statically), it doesn't make sense to allow mixing things.
Is there an usecase for dynamic requirements​? In that situation users can
just as well use the current sdist format. There are no advantages to using
the new sdist format if your requirements are dynamic right?

Thanks,
-- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151029/7f922c62/attachment.html>