On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
This issue in PyPI's bug tracker suggests that PyPI already supports it if distutils were updated (but I haven't confirmed): http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3396924&group_id=66150&atid=513503 --Chris > > 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
