On 4 May 2016 at 16:03, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > The edits I'd expect to make if the conclusions I suggested in > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2016-March/028437.html > are adopted are: > > - change to a Python API > - BFDL call on the file format and name > > There is no need to issue a new sdist thing, because sdists today are > *already* documented across PEPs 241, 314 and 345.
I already +1'ed using a Python API, but on the file name & format side, we have the following candidates and prior art floating around: pypa.json in PEP 516 pypackage.json in PEP 517 pydist.json in PEP 426 METADATA (Key: Value) in sdists and wheels WHEEL (Key: Value) in wheels My impression is that we're generally agreed on wanting to move from Key:Value to JSON as the baseline for interoperability formats, so my suggestion is to use the name "pybuild.json". The problem I have with pypa/pypackage/pydist is that they're all too broad - we're moving towards an explicitly multi-stage pipeline (tree -> sdist -> wheel -> installed) and additional metadata gets added at each step. The "pybuild.json" metadata specifically covers how to get from a source tree or sdist to a built wheel file, so I think it makes sense to use a name that reflects that. Cheers, Nick. P.S. If you search for "pybuild", there *are* some existing utilities out there by that name, including a package builder for Debian. If you search for "pybuild.json" instead, then the 3rd-ranked link, at least for me, is Antoine Pitrou's original suggestion of that name back in November. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
