On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:25:45 -0600, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're talking about release numbers for the binary package made by > third parties like ActiveState or Enthought. As we fix bugs in our > build process for each package, we may need to release multiple > binary packages for each main Thanks for clarifying. Ok, well if it hidden way inside the package where nobody really bothers to look I guess that it won't make much difference. I have to say that my opinion is that we should be cleaning up the crap that is inside packages and not adding to it. Presently we have all sorts of duplication of information in there, much of which isn't used. Lets look: 1) dependency_links : imo obsolete, usually left empty 2) requires : imo made obsolete soon by PEP-345 3) sources : Works fine 4) top_level : wt.. is this? What program uses this? 5) not-zip-safe : couldn't this be a setting in setup.cfg? 6) PKG-INFO : The metadata file itself So from the above list, 4 out 6 files serve no real purpose. I'm actually ok with new files and directories created after installation. But that should be made a little clearer in the PEP. It's ambiguous as to whether the files are carried in the package or created at installation time. David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
