[Python-Dev] [Catalog-sig] egg_info in PyPI

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Sat Sep 18 17:46:45 CEST 2010

Tarek Ziadé writes:

 > "Good enough metadata" sounds completely wrong to me.

I hate to break it to you, but experience shows that the XEmacs
package system, whose dependency tracking is in theory a pile of
braindamaged rubbish, an abomination in the sight of She Who Created
The World With 4-Space Indentation, is definitely good enough to be an
big improvement over nothing at all.

I don't know why people would choose to implement their tools based on
egg_info rather than PEP 345, but if there's some momentum in that
direction already, those developers and users are not going to be
pleased to hear "we're sorry, but what's good enough for you is not
allowed on PyPi."  If PEP 345 is as much better than previous
frameworks as it sounds to be, you really shouldn't have much trouble
building momentum.

In the meantime, it's better to let people using a competing
"standard" (even if it's neither very good nor a "real" standard) do
their thing until they see the light.  If you can't pass that test,
then the question "what was all our work on PEP 345 for, anyway"
becomes quite acute, but not in the way you're using it. :-/

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list