Makes sense. Even 1.2 has maintainer. It probably wouldn't be too intrusive to spit out a few more fields in distutils. I don't know about pypi which usually gets metadata as a dictionary. On Feb 23, 2013 10:51 PM, "Chris Jerdonek" <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Maintainer (optional) > > --------------------- > > > > A string containing the maintainer's name at a minimum; additional > > contact information may be provided. > > > > Note that this field is intended for use when a project is being > > maintained by someone other than the original author: it should be > > omitted if it is identical to ``Author``. > > I'm wondering whether Metadata 2.0 can help in rectifying the fact > that the contents of the Author field are blown away by the contents > of the Maintainer field when used with current tools (e.g. distutils, > Distribute/setuptools, PyPI) as described in issues 16403 and 16108, > etc ([1], [2]). If backwards compatibility is the issue, maybe > Metadata 2.0 can help by providing the way forward. > > [1] http://bugs.python.org/issue16403 > [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue16108 > > --Chris > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
