Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Fwd: PEP 426 is now the draft spec for distribution metadata 2.0

Donald Stufft donald.stufft at gmail.com
Tue Feb 19 21:36:21 CET 2013 
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 19 February 2013 13:40, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com (mailto:ncoghlan at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > If a tools wants to support metadata 2.0, it has to support all
> > > the complicated stuff as well, i.e. handle the requires fields,
> > > the environment markers and version comparisons/sorting.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Which is what distutils2 can be used for now, and what distlib will
> > provide without the unwanted build system infrastructure in
> > distutils2.
> > 
> 
> 
> One particular item in Metadata 2.0 which needs to be addressed is
> requirements specifiers, as used in (for example) Requires-Dist. These
> take forms like "DistName (>= ver)". There are a number of potential
> issues here:
> 
> 1. This differs from the pkg_resources format (which omits the
> parentheses). Having 2 subtly different formats is not a good idea in
> the long term. At the moment, pkg_resources format is used in pip
> requirements (on the command line and in requirement files) as well as
> in setuptools/distribute and possibly elsewhere.
> 2. There is currently no code that I am aware of that implements this
> spec. I don't believe distlib does (yet - give Vinay 5 minutes and who
> knows? :-)), pkg_resources as I said implements a different format,
> and distutils2, apart from being a big dependency to cover just this
> point, only matches the version (not the project name) and presumably
> does so using the distutils2 version ordering (which is incompatible
> with Metadata 2.0).
> 
> 

It should be alongside the version stuff, atleast it was in distutils2. 
> 3. The format is fiddly to parse and process - nobody is likely to
> implement it for themselves without a library that does it (especially
> not when using pkg_resources is so easy).
> 
> The PEP needs a rationale as to why the pkg_resources format wasn't
> used, and should suggest a migration path for projects which currently
> use the pkg_resources style (such as pip's requirements files).
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org (mailto:Python-Dev at python.org)
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130219/9093b066/attachment.html>
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list