On 27 January 2016 at 17:53, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > Yeah - note that my PR punts on this - it says PEP 427 METADATA file, > but as we know the contents of that are a snapshot of earlier drafts > of PEP-426, so its really not all that well defined, and before folk > can iterate on that further we'll need to do something about that - > either by a rewrite of PEP 426 into a much more pithy thing now, > without the enterprise feel and the moon-shot aspects, or by issuing a > PEP that specifies exactly what is in METADATA.
As of about a minute ago, there's a slightly better reference for that now: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/#core-metadata It gives us something to point to that says that in practice, the current metadata spec is the file format and field definitions in PEP 345 + Provides-Extra + PEP 440 + PEP 508. My thread about it didn't garner a lot of attention, so I figured it made more sense to just go ahead and flip the switch, rather than trying to encourage more interest. More generally, it means any "the PEPs don't always match reality" clarifications can now just go into the PyPUG specs section until such time as we get around to updating the relevant spec. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
