No, PEP 426 needs to be static metadata that is not modified by the installer.
The new json file would make more sense in (a successor to) PEP 376 "Database of Installed Python Distributions". In wheel it would would need to be handled as a processing step similar to writing console_scripts, or doing non-console_scripts #! rewriting, or updating MANIFEST. Too bad the wheel post-install is not as pluggable as setuptools egg-info writers. On May 12, 2015 5:36 PM, "Vinay Sajip" <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> > >On 13 May 2015 at 00:44, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> As a prerequisite to adding useful finer-grained installations to > >> setuptools & wheel, I propose adding install_paths.json as a metadata > > > +1, this sounds like a good incremental step forward to me. I'm not > > > sure how best to document it, though. Perhaps have this initial> > increment as an implementation detail, and then formalise it in the > > next version of the wheel spec. > > > Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, too. But IIUC this file will be > written by an installer, but not necessarily present in the wheel - is that > right? If not present in the wheel (or perhaps anyway) ISTM it makes sense > to specify it in PEP 426 because it's part of the installation metadata. > > Regards, > > Vinay Sajip >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
