>> I.e. Have the shorter "N.N.N[(a|b|c)N]" scheme for "version" to be >> used for "released" packages. And have a separate field (or fields) >> for use in dependency handling of unreleased versions? Putting the two >> together is resulting in package uploads to PyPI > > What would be the difference then with the initial proposal ? You > would end up merging the "short" version > with the dev field to be able to sort different versions of the same > distribution. > > If we have dev versions, we have to include them in the scheme
I've been thinking from the p.o.v. of what releases get up on PyPI.... and I gather that those releases are the ones that lead to potential packaging in RPM and .deb repositories. Say "version" and "build_number" (or whatever name for the latter) are separate fields. Only "version" is used for putting in package names (sdist, bdist_*). However the setup() fields for dependency info can specify checks against both version and build_number. The difference with the initial proposal (if I'm not missing something) is that: - packages looking like "foo-1.2.3.dev-r456.tar.gz" don't get uploaded to PyPI (yeah!) - the meta data in my released version can still state what SCC revision (in the build_number field) it was built against - when I specify a dependency against a particular build_number of a package, I don't care if that build_number happened to be a released version or a dev version Trent -- Trent Mick [email protected] _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
