On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm probably the only one but I'm not a fan of JSON with all the extra " >> > marks compared to the venerable, lovely, flatter and much easier to edit >> > Key: value format. >> >> I don't really care that much about human readability of the raw >> metadata files, I care a lot more about ease of interoperability for >> automated tools, and ease of display for generic tools that may not >> understand the semantics. I also care about the standard format being >> amenable to the publication of metadata through TUF's JSON based >> infrastructure. > > > When I see that file I've always thought "why aren't we writing these by > hand instead of through setup.py and then validating that they are correct > with a tool?" Bento's file sortof follows this logic. I can accept JSON.
That's a similar question to the one the distutils2 folks asked before coming up with setup.cfg. The reason I think we need to assume a generated file rather than a hand-edited one is because, for the vast majority of Python users, for the foreseeable future, their static metadata is going to be generated by running a setup.py file. For most others, it's going to be generated from either setup.cfg or from bento.info. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
