[Distutils] PEP 425 vs pip

[Nick Coghlan]

On 11 March 2016 at 19:41, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Enthought we have been trying to use PEP 425 tags to include its metadata
> in our packages. It has been harder than expected because of missing
> information in PEP 425, and maybe inconsistencies with what pip actually
> does.
>
> I think PEP 425 should be updated to take into account pip actual
> implementation:
>
> 1. python tag and pypy: the PEP says "the version is py_version_nodot .
> CPython gets away with no dot, but if one is needed the underscore _ is used
> instead. PyPy should probably use its own versions here pp18 , pp19 ". This
> is not what pip does as of version 8.1.0 for pypy. Instead, the version is
> python major + sys.pypy_version_info.major + sys.pypy_version_info.minor.
>
> 2. It would be nice to know how to deal with other alternative
> implementations as well. Would the scheme in 1. work for jython, etc... ?
>
> 3. The abi tag should at least be specified for cpython IMO. E.g. the
> meaning of `m`, `u` and `d` should be clearly specified.
>
> While the PEP mentions each implementation community is welcome to use the
> abi tag as they wish, given that in practice it is defined in pip, I think
> that should be specified as well.
>
> Do the above make sense ? If so, I could spend some time to update it (or
> create a new amending PEP ?)

Proposed errrata & minor admentments for PEP 425 can be submitted as a
PyPUG issue with a PR against
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/#platform-compatibility-tags

(the actual technical details of the proposed changes should still be
discussed here)

This does remind me I have unfinished work in officially amending that
spec management process, though:
https://github.com/pypa/pypa.io/issues/11#issuecomment-195412332

Regards,
Nick.

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