On 23 September 2015 at 02:54, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> wrote: >>>>>> "NC" == Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> writes: > > NC> I just noticed that the packaging policy doesn't currently mention > NC> dist-info directories, only the older egg-info: > NC> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include > > dist-info is completely new to me. I never particularly understood eggs > so I'm sure I'll understand "dists" or whatever it's called now.
It's a metadata directory installed alongside Python packages to let Python tools know which packages are installed: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376/#one-dist-info-directory-per-installed-distribution At various times over the last couple of years we'd discussed the notion of using pip rather than direct setup.py invocation in the Python install macros, which would generate that more complete metadata rather than the partial metadata generated in .egg-info by setuptools, or the complete lack of installation metadata generated by plain distutils. (The main discussion I remember is one with Toshio Kuratomi at Flock 2013, but I think it also came up in a discussion with Slavek Kabrda last year). However, it looks like I'd misrembered the situation, and changing the RPM install macros to generate modern metadata is still in the "this might be desirable" stage. That's a much bigger change than just tweaking the docs to mention the updated metadata location. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
