> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 17 September 2014 11:23, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think that’s what we all want, the difference is that myself and some >> others don’t think it’s acceptable to build ontop of things which aren’t >> standardized. We’ve had ~15 years of implementation defined “standards”, I >> don’t think blessing officially something which adds more implementation >> defined standards is the right path forward. This means that things take >> longer (It took well over a year for PEP 440, which is just focused around >> version numbers!) but I think in the end it will end up with a solution that >> is far more robust and far less likely to end up in a situation where we are >> today where if you don’t use the exact same tooling as everyone else you’re >> likely to have problems. >> >> That static metadata is one of the reasons *why* distlib isn’t suitable for >> the reference implementation. I have no idea if your specific implementation >> is good, bad, or somewhere in between but afaik there isn’t even a spec at >> all much less a general discussion about how it should be structured. > > Right, and I think that's a good way to *explicitly* position the two levels: > > * packaging & pip now aim to be strict implementations of the agreed > standards, with only the distutils/setuptools/pkg_resources de facto > standards supported for reasons of compatibility > > * distlib & distil aim to explore what the current drafts of the > standards (perhaps with a few experimental embellishments) make > possible > > I've come to realise we need both of those capabilities, and that the > previous arguments around the appropriate scope of distlib related to > trying to get it to serve two fundamentally incompatible use cases. > > Perhaps we should make that official policy? Anything in PEP 426 and > PEP 459 (and other packaging metadata and installation database > related PEPs) needs to be trialled in distlib/distil before the PEPs > can be accepted? distlib could operate permanently under a PEP 411 > style "provisional API" guideline, and if folks aren't comfortable > with "this may break without warning", then they can stick to the > stable packaging/pip layer. >
I’m OK with calling out this relationship though I don’t think it should be a mandatory thing. I think we’re all adults and able to figure out when it makes sense to trial it in distil/distlib or not. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
