On 21 Feb 2013 02:12, "Daniel Holth" <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > -1 The same arguments will just be repeated again. >> >> I'm not so sure - at the moment, I'm basically saying "trust me, I >> have a plan for this". I do have a plan, and I've shared bits and >> pieces of it with different people, but not put any of it together as >> coherent proposals (not even as an essay on python-notes, which is >> what I'm working on now). >> >> So I guess I'm really asking if there are any major plans people have >> for the next month or so that hinge on using PEP 426 metadata rather >> than setuptools metadata? If not, I think it's worth my taking the >> time to give the PEP more context. Rolling out wheel support should be >> enough to keep people busy for a while... > > > As long as nobody minds that wheel uses Provides-Extra, utf-8 and description-in-body right now. I don't think those particular features are controversial. > > The current distribute (pkg_resources) implementation only parses requirements out of metadata if it is inside a .dist-info directory and only uses requires.txt if looking inside .egg-info (and does not have to open or parse PKG-INFO at all in this case). So if you are using .dist-info (used by wheel) then you need Metadata 1.2+ and if you are representing a very significant portion of setuptools projects you will need Provides-Extra. >
OK, I can live with that. Aside from a couple of small tweaks and additions, I think the format is mostly fine, but I want to get clearer transition plans in place before I flip the status to Accepted. Cheers, Nick.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig