On 4 Jul 2013 18:52, "Vinay Sajip" <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > * "install": the installation specifier for the dependency > > * "extra": as per the current PEP (for conditional dependencies) > > * "environment": as per the current PEP (for conditional dependencies) > > > > 4. The "install" subfield is compulsory, the other two are optional > > (as now, using either of the latter creates a "conditional > > dependency", while dependency declarations with only the "install" > > subfield are unconditional) > > > > 5. An installation specifier is what PEP 426 currently calls a > > dependency specifier: the "name [extras] (constraints)" format. They > > will get their own top level section (similar to the existing Extras > > and Environment markers sections) > > Is there a particular benefit of the install subfield being a single > installation specifier, as opposed to a list of such specifiers? It's > perhaps neither here nor there for machine-processed metadata, but I expect > this metadata would have human readers too. Not using a list would lead to > more verbose metadata.
Hmm, I guess as long as it's consistent, the only difference when processing is list.append vs list.extend. There's a little extra work when serialising to group like entries together, but I'm OK with that (and that would be a SHOULD rather than a MUST anyway). If I don't hear a good argument against it, I'll make that field a list. > > Regards, > > Vinay Sajip > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
