On 29 October 2015 at 02:09, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > On 28 October 2015 at 23:39, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> [...] >>> From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to do >>> is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build system >>> improvements, and defer everything else (e.g. JSON-LD, SPDX, richer >>> dependency semantics, etc) to a future metadata 3.0 proposal (or potentially >>> metadata extensions, or 2.x format updates). >> >> I think PEP 426 is actually orthogonal to these proposals. AFAICT, the only >> reason Robert's PEP as written requires PEP 426 is that he needs a standard >> serializable format to list dependencies... but he actually defines such a >> format about 10 lines above for the static bootstrap-requirements key, i.e. >> a list of specifier strings. So it actually makes more sense to use that for >> dynamic requirements too for internal consistency, and leave PEP 426 out of >> it. > > pip requires: > - distribution name > - install_requires [+extras] > > today. It will want external dependencies in future (and in the spec I > put forward build dependencies would be obtained earlier so could be > skipped). > > I'd rather not invent a *new* format for handling both of these, but > i'm ok if Donald and Nick specifically are.
They're probably a good candidate for the version specifier and environment marker treatment: extracting a "dependency specifier" PEP to give us a building block we can use in the higher level specs. Cheers, Nick. > > -Rob > -- > Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> > Distinguished Technologist > HP Converged Cloud -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
