On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ian Bicking wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Marc-André Lemburg gave me a key points about the static metadata >>> discussions we have (wether its PEP 390 or around it) >>> >>> He said that the important thing was to have the context-dependant >>> markers in PKG-INFO, and that having in described in >>> setup.cfg or in setup.py by any way is not the important thing. And he >>> is right ! >> >> Excellent, this resolves my own concern about the discussion as well. >> Putting this in PKG-INFO is something I can concretely make use of, >> regardless of how it is generated. >> >> PKG-INFO is already somewhat flawed as a format for holding the data, >> in particularly maintaining indentation for Description. I think >> adding a general "...; <condition>" places another syntactic >> constraint, where no field can have ";" in it. Ideally I'd like to >> see both cases resolved. And certainly I don't want to end up in a >> place where weird bugs emerge if I put ";" in a field (especially >> since many are free text). > > The only fields where I see this syntax making any sense are the > "requirements" ones: > > - - The ones specified in PEP 314: Requires, Provides, Obsoletes > - - The new ones proposed in PEP 345[1]: Requires-Dist, Provides-Dist, > Obsoletes-Dist
Yes, that would have to be a subset of the fields, and ";" makes PKG-INFO still RFC 232 compatible. Tarek _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
