On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
I have backed off on the notion of overloading 'Requires:' /
'Provides:'
/ 'Obsoletes:', following Jim's notion of deprecating them in
favor of
new fields. I named them 'Requires-Dist:', 'Provides-Dist:', and
'Obsoletes-Dist'.
"Stock" distutils should probably spell the arguments to
distutils.core.setup predictably: 'requires_dist',
'provides_dist',
'obsoletes_dist'. setuptools can treat 'install_requires' as an
undeprecated alias for 'requires_dist'.
What is the rational for this? I'd strongly prefer the "requires"
argument name to be compatible with setuptools. Otherwise, I think
we'll introduce needless confusion.
I'm aiming for self-consistency within the 'PKG-INFO' field names:
- 'Requires'
- 'Requires-Python'
- 'Requires-External'
The 'Obsoletes' and 'Provides' fields also need
distutils-project-oriented versions, so picking a suffix ('-Dist')
which
matched for them seemed cleanest.
Add that to the fact that setuptools has no way (yet) to spell
'provides' or 'obsoletes', and it seemed to me clearer to just make
setuptools current argument an alias for the "consistent" version
to be
landed in distutils.
I get that. In fact, I already got that. :) I think backward
compatibility
with existing wide usage is more important and not incompatible.
we could also support both spellings for one version, and deprecate
the old name with a warning,
Strong: -1.
Why change the name? A different name isn't going to be better enough
to be worth the hassle. Deprecation is waaaay overrated as a tool for
reducing the pain of making people change their code or habits.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
