On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I plan to reject PEP 390, since that feature won't be added to the stdlib. > > The reason we will need at least a minimal replacement for it is so that > there's a standard place to define and retrieve the archiver hook that > creates the sdist (and hence pymeta.json) from a source tarball or VCS > checkout (as well as determine the necessary dependencies for that step). > A minimal file that only requires what's needed for bootstrapping the archiver is fine. > My reason for wanting to flesh out a more comprehensive pymeta.cfg spec, > though, is as a sanity check on the proposed PEP 426 metadata. If I can't > come up with a clean multi-file input format, then I will be highly > suspicious of the underlying data model. > I don't see anything wrong with making this spec but I don't think it should be conflated with the PEP for a standard way to bootstrap the archiver. I also don't think it belongs as a PEP as its not a proposal to enhance python just a test of the new metadata and an example of what an archiver _could_ use as its format. > Cheers, > Nick. > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
