At 02:26 AM 10/5/2010 +0100, Alexis Métaireau wrote:
Hey all,
Sorry for this long silence; I'm now back on track.
Le 08/28/2010 04:27 AM, P.J. Eby a écrit :
> At 05:08 PM 8/27/2010 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> P.J. Eby wrote:
>> FWIW, I helped add those fields to PEP 345, in the context of making the
>> switch from "module / package"-centric values to distribution-centric
>> ones. The requirements came out of a sprint at PyCon 2009, with input
>> from both the Debian / Ubuntu Python packager (Matthias Klose) and one
>> of the Fedora packagers (Toshio Kuratomi).
>
> Great - could we get them to join in on this discussion to explain what
> it is that they want the creators of Python libraries to put in these
> fields, and what they intend to do with the information once it's there?
+1 on that. We need to have inputs on that: that's good to have fields,
but it's more important to know how they are supposed to be considered.
Any news about that ? Do someone have email adresses of Matthias Klose
and Toshio Kuratomi ?
Also, it's important to notice there is a difference between the new
field (release-conflict IIRC), and I assume it's important to have a
discussion about it know, and the others fields that are just being
renamed. (*-release fields). Maybe could we update the PEP a first time
about the renaming changes, in order to use them in the first version of
Distutils2, and them continue the discussion about the conflict field.
If a field doesn't have clear semantics, there is no point in
allowing people to specify it - it is literally adding a new field to
a database and inviting the entire world to put whatever they want in
it... which means you end up with a worthless database (at least in
that column).
While this isn't the first metadata PEP with this problem, it would
be nice if the previous one were the last. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
