Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-15 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 15 March 2017 at 02:05, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Having special metadata for "sdist creation-time dependencies" strikes > me as papering over the needless complexity of the current system by > adding more complexity on top. I can see how it'd have some short-term > benefits

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-14 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 09:41, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > On 11 March 2017 at 00:52, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-13 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 11 March 2017 at 00:52, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > After a few years of dormancy, I've finally moved

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-13 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 11 March 2017 at 14:17, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 11 March 2017 at 07:03, Daniel Holth wrote: > >> You lost me a bit at 'extra sets'. FYI it is already possible to depend >> on your own extras in another extra. >> >> Extra pseudo code: >> spampackage >>

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 11 March 2017 at 07:03, Daniel Holth wrote: > You lost me a bit at 'extra sets'. FYI it is already possible to depend on > your own extras in another extra. > > Extra pseudo code: > spampackage > extra['spam'] = 'spampackage[eggs]' > extra['eggs'] = ... > Oh, nice. In that

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Daniel Holth
You lost me a bit at 'extra sets'. FYI it is already possible to depend on your own extras in another extra. Extra pseudo code: spampackage extra['spam'] = 'spampackage[eggs]' extra['eggs'] = ... +1 on extras. The extras feature has the wonderful property that people understand it. Lots of

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 07:56 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 11 March 2017 at 00:52, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > After a few years of dormancy, I've finally moved the

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 11 March 2017 at 00:52, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > After a few years of dormancy, I've finally moved the metadata 2.0 > > specification back to Draft status: > >

Re: [Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Hi folks, > > After a few years of dormancy, I've finally moved the metadata 2.0 > specification back to Draft status: > https://github.com/python/peps/commit/8ae8b612d4ea8b3bf5d8a7b795ae8aec48bbb7a3 We have lots of

[Distutils] PEP 426 moved back to Draft status

2017-03-10 Thread Nick Coghlan
Hi folks, After a few years of dormancy, I've finally moved the metadata 2.0 specification back to Draft status: https://github.com/python/peps/commit/8ae8b612d4ea8b3bf5d8a7b795ae8aec48bbb7a3 Based on our last round of discussion, I've culled a lot of the complexity around dependency