Re: [Distutils] Migrating interoperability specs to packaging.python.org

On 4 September 2017 at 23:33, Nick Coghlan wrote: > However, I'm also wondering if it may still be worthwhile writing a > metadata 1.3 PEP that does the following things: > > 1. Explicitly notes the addition of the two new fields > 2. Describes the process change for packaging

Re: [Distutils] Migrating interoperability specs to packaging.python.org

On 4 September 2017 at 23:33, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Some time ago, I started the process [1] of adjusting how > distutils-sig uses the PEP process so that the reference > specifications will live on packaging.python.org, and we use the PEP > process to manage *changes* to

Re: [Distutils] Migrating interoperability specs to packaging.python.org

Well, none of the metadata generated by bdist wheel conforms to an accepted pep. But if you rely on the json file then you won't be interoperable with wheels from any other generator. On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, 10:06 Alex Grönholm wrote: > Yes, I see the inclusion of a

Re: [Distutils] Migrating interoperability specs to packaging.python.org

Yes, I see the inclusion of a metadata file which conforms to an unaccepted PEP as potentially dangerous. Perhaps I should disable it in the next release? Daniel Holth kirjoitti 04.09.2017 klo 17:03: Some people enjoy using metadata.json which tracked pep 426 but I have been meaning to

Re: [Distutils] Migrating interoperability specs to packaging.python.org

Some people enjoy using metadata.json which tracked pep 426 but I have been meaning to take it out, and perhaps keep the key/value to json converter as a command. On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, 09:33 Nick Coghlan wrote: > Some time ago, I started the process [1] of adjusting how >