On Feb 17, 2016 4:44 AM, "Donald Stufft" <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > You could say that using twine to handle the uploading is a thing people should > do (and I agree!) but that currently relies on having static metadata inside of > the sdist that twine can parse, static metadata that isn't going to exist if > you just simply tarball up a directory on disk.
Ah-ha, this is useful. The reason this hasn't been considered, at least in my proposal, is that I think this is the first I've heard that there is anything that cares about what's in an sdist besides setup.py :-). Is there anything written up on what twine wants from an sdist? Would it make sense for you to write up a spec on what twine/pypi need and a better way to represent it than whatever it is distutils does now? I think both Robert and my proposal basically see their scope as being strictly restricted to "here's how we want to replace pip-calling-setup.py with pip-calling-something-else", while keeping everything else the same or at least delegating any other changes to other PEPs. So we envision that build system authors will provide some way to package up source into an sdist, whatever that means; that could be a current-style sdist with metadata requirements reverse-engineered from twine and setuptools, or it could be done kind of new and improved sdist that is about to get its own PEP... either way, it's orthogonal to replacing setup.py. -n
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
