On 16 September 2014 12:39, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Surely having a spec for a requirement has to be part of the sign-off >> requirements for Metadata 2.0? > > Donald already noted that most of these details were moved to PEP 440, > despite being in PEP 426 in earlier drafts. > > This had two primary benefits:
Thanks, yes. I knew it must be somewhere, I just couldn't work out where. Sorry for the noise. One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not particularly in the specs, though) is where is the best place to find the "canonical" implementations of the various metadata specs. At one point, distlib seemed to be taking that role, but I'm not sure it is any more. Is that the role the "packaging" project is now taking on? This is where I think it's a shame that this infrastructure isn't being added to the stdlib - knowing that if you use "import packaging.pep440" from the stdlib (or a backport of it) you get the official semantics is a major help in writing one-off utility scripts. For many of my scripts, I've spent longer looking for a good implementation of the standard stuff (or writing it myself) than I have writing the application logic :-( Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
