[Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Dec 24 02:31:09 CET 2009

David Lyon writes:

 > > I am just describing the needs and the end user PoV with the reference
 > > implementation that happens to be used by *all* tools out there.
 > That's good. That's what we need right now.

Martin's point is that the PEP process doesn't *have* "reference"
implementations.  It has *sample* implementations.  It may be useful
to refer to a sample implementation as an example, but the PEP must
*define* the behaviors without such references, and compare the
behavior of the sample to the defined behavior.  And references to
internal details like function names is inappropriate in most cases; I
assume that is Martin's point here.

 > > So that will happen in the code of course, but we need the PEP to
 > > state clearly wether metadata 1.0 and 1.1 should be dropped by
 > > implementations or not.
 > +1

You can state what you want.  What implementations do is another
matter.  An implementation with lots of state like PyPI is not likely
to change quickly.  As a matter of user relations (including but not
limited to developers like you), Python doesn't want to deprecate
practices that are expensive to change too soon.  (That's not my
opinion about what is appropriate, that is my assessment of the
historical policy of Python, which I don't think will change.)

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list