On 18 September 2010 08:44, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
> [snip...] > >> Also, and I understand enthusiasm tends to build up during >> conferences, but wouldn't supporting setuptools' egg-info directory >> again be a step backwards after all those months of discussion about >> the direction of Python packaging? >> > > People have been requesting this specific feature for years; until > now, I never understood what the need is. It's really a tiny feature > and very easy to provide. I fail to see why this can be a bad thing. > Well, three years ago it might have been a good thing. :-) With the distutils2 work very close to landing in the standard library, providing infrastructure that will cause tools to *depend* on the old formats sounds to me like a very bad idea. If tool use this metadata then it could well prevent packages that want to be compatible with these tools from using distutils2. What PyPI does effectively becomes "the standard" for a large chunk of the Python world (which is why changing the format PyPI provides data in can be so hard). Now seems a really dumb time to bless the setuptools metadata format as the defacto standard after so much work has gone into replacing it and that effort is so close to completion. All the best, Michael Foord > > Regards, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Catalog-SIG mailing list > Catalog-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
