On 18 Feb 2013 08:36, "Fred Drake" <f...@fdrake.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As Daniel pointed out, easy_install and pip also don't follow this rule yet, > > so it won't really have any impact if we never get to metadata 3.0. > > Actually, my point was that using a separate filename for version 2.0 would > allow provision of both 1.x and 2.0, so version 2.0 metadata can be deployed > as tool support becomes available, instead of having to wait until 1.x tools > are replaced. > > Once tools are following the new rule about version compatibility, there's > less worry about this (at least on my part).
None of sdist, wheel or the installation database currently support parallel metadata versions. Interpreting 2.0 metadata as 1.1 also won't be catastrophically wrong in general, especially if the production tools still also ship the legacy dependency and entry points data as separate files. The worst thing that is likely to happen is an old tool may fail to show a 2.0 style description. However, I *will* update the PEP to state explicitly that tools should emit the lowest required metadata version for the fields being published. Cheers, Nick. > > > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at fdrake.net> > "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________ 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
