[Distutils] distlib and wheel metadata

[Daniel Holth]

Another way to look at the problem is that it is just too hard to override
what the package says. For example in buildout you can provide a patch for
any package that does not do exactly what you want, and it is applied
during installation. This could include patching the dependencies.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:15 PM Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:


On Feb 23, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

Redistributors may *ask* a publisher to reclassify their project as a
library or a devtool (and hence also avoid pinning their dependencies in
order to make integration easier), but publishers will always have the
option of saying "No, we want to you to treat it as an application, and we
won't help your end users if we know you're overriding our pinned
dependencies and the issue can't be reproduced outside your custom
configuration".



This whole discussion feels like trying to overcomplicate something that’s
already not a simple to solve a problem that I don’t think is really that
widespread. My estimation is that 99% of people who are currently using
``==`` will just immediately switch over to using whatever flag we provide
that allows them to still do that. Adding a “do the thing I asked for”
detritus to the project seems like a bad idea.

It’s not really any different than if a project say, only released Wheels.
While we want to encourage projects to release sdists (and to not ping
versions) trying to enforce that isn’t worth the cost. Like most packaging
issues, I think that it’s best solved by opening up issues on the offending
project’s issue tracker.

—

Donald Stufft
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20170223/3de6f6ea/attachment.html>