Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> The meta-data is only used by PyPI and perhaps a handful >> of other tools. > [...] >> The addition of the maintainer meta-data field would >> not hurt anyone and create more consistency. > > since PyPI has its own Role system (owner, maintainer) managed by the > user who registered the distribution, independantly from the Metadata, > what use case are you thinking about for a new Maintainer field ?
PyPI is just an application using the meta-data - and the only one I know of. I'm just suggesting to add the meta-data field in order to recreate consistency - not advocating that setup() parameter or its use. > When an author is not maintaining a package anymore, and an extra name > has to be added, we previously said that this extra name could be added > in the author field. > > So what would be the gain to distinguish maintainers form authors, and > how PyPI will deal with the fact that a package will have maintainers in > its metadata, and maintainers at PyPI that may differ ? That's up for the package owners to sort out. I would expect the maintainer to do a new release and update the maintainer field. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6992> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
