On 4 May 2016 at 19:39, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I don't think we have anything resembling consensus on that pipeline idea. pybuild.json would be fine as a name though :). -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hpe.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
