Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 6 December 2017 at 07:02, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Dec 5, 2017 08:42, "Dustin Ingram" wrote: > > > Provides-Extra (optional, multiple use) > ::: > > A string containing the name of an optional feature. Must be a

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Dec 5, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > I haven't followed this so sorry if this is an annoying comment, but having > read this description I still don't really understand what Provides-Extra is > doing. Don't packages already include extra information? What

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Paul Moore
On 5 December 2017 at 20:34, Dustin Ingram wrote: > Ah, I see, by "other two" I thought you meant the other two new fields. > > Looking at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0566/ might make it > more clear that I originally intended the "New in Version 1.3" and > "Changed in

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Dec 5, 2017 08:42, "Dustin Ingram" wrote: Provides-Extra (optional, multiple use) ::: A string containing the name of an optional feature. Must be a valid Python identifier. May be used to make a dependency conditional on whether

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Dustin Ingram
Ah, I see, by "other two" I thought you meant the other two new fields. Looking at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0566/ might make it more clear that I originally intended the "New in Version 1.3" and "Changed in Version 1.3" headings to only be under the "Fields" heading, so the outline

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Paul Moore
On 5 December 2017 at 18:11, Dustin Ingram wrote: >> I was a bit confused at first by the fact that you describe >> environment markers but not where they are allowed. On checking, I >> find that this is defined in version 1.2 (PEP 345). It might be worth >> a small clarification

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Dustin Ingram
> I was a bit confused at first by the fact that you describe > environment markers but not where they are allowed. On checking, I > find that this is defined in version 1.2 (PEP 345). It might be worth > a small clarification that this (and name and version specifiers) are > still used in the

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Paul Moore
LGTM. I was a bit confused at first by the fact that you describe environment markers but not where they are allowed. On checking, I find that this is defined in version 1.2 (PEP 345). It might be worth a small clarification that this (and name and version specifiers) are still used in the same

Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Tres Seaver
On 12/05/2017 11:39 AM, Dustin Ingram wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd appreciate your feedback on the following Metadata 1.3 PEP. > > The goal here is not to provide a full specification for all fields as > in previous PEPs, but to: > > * Motivate and describe the addition of the new fields or changes

[Distutils] RFC: PEP 566 - Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3

2017-12-05 Thread Dustin Ingram
Hi all, I'd appreciate your feedback on the following Metadata 1.3 PEP. The goal here is not to provide a full specification for all fields as in previous PEPs, but to: * Motivate and describe the addition of the new fields or changes to existing fields; * Point to the Core Metadata