2009/7/6 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: > P.J. Eby wrote: >> So, I'm +1 for no change (obviously), and +0 for "always .pydist in 3.x >> and always .egg-info in 2.x", whether the latter part is achieved by >> making distutils/pkgutil use a version-dependent extension, or by >> refusing to backport distutils/pkgutil to 2.x. I'm -1 for having >> .pydist ever appear on a 2.x Python, either via stdlib or backporting. >> >> (These comments also apply for any name other than '.pydist'.) > > Thanks for the explanation - Before this message I didn't fully grasp > *how* installing a directory containing files that the other packages > might not understand would help with the backwards compatibility problem. > > Now I understand that aspect better (i.e. it isn't a matter of > "setuptools won't change" but "the user might already have an old > version of setuptools/pip/etc on their system, or be installing a > package that uses an old version of one of those libraries for its > installer"), I no longer think it is worth the hassle of trying to use a > "prettier" name for the metadata directory. So +1 on keeping the same > extension name and -1 on the idea of changing it to anything other than > the existing ".egg-info". > > I believe the idea of having different names in 2.x and 3.x would likely > cause too many problems for simple bdist_* installers of modules that > use only the common 2.x/3.x language subset, so I'm also -1 on that idea.
That suits me too. I'm happy for the name to stay as it is. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
