On Oct 2, 2015 5:18 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > On October 2, 2015 at 4:24:38 PM, Daniel Holth (dho...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> > We need to embrace partial solutions and the fine folks who propose > >> them so the whole packaging ecosystem can have some progress. > >> PEP 438 may not be a good analogue to adding a new sdist format since > >> the latter only adds new things that you can do. A new sdist format > >> will inconvenience a much more limited set of people, mainly > >> the pip authors and the OS package maintainers. > > > > Packaging formats are a bit like HTTP, "move fast and break things" isn't super > > great because anytime you add a new format, you have to support that *forever* > > (or long enough to basically be forever). > > Right: this is why it's important for me to make the case that putting > full PEP 426 metadata in sdists is not just temporarily inconvenient, > but actually conceptually the wrong thing to do.
pydist.jsonld would be a helpful metadata file to add to an sdist, as well URIs to dependencies with rule/constraints in the reified edges drawn from e.g. - setup.py - requirements.txt - requirements.lock/versions/freeze.txt - requirements.peep.txt - requirements-dev/test/docs.txt - [versions.cfg] > > -n > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
