On 28 Oct 2015 11:39, "Nathaniel Smith" <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2015 3:25 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > From an sdist metadata perspective, though, I think the right thing to do is to descope PEP 426 to just the stuff we *need* for the build system improvements, and defer everything else (e.g. JSON-LD, SPDX, richer dependency semantics, etc) to a future metadata 3.0 proposal (or potentially metadata extensions, or 2.x format updates). > > I think PEP 426 is actually orthogonal to these proposals. AFAICT, the only reason Robert's PEP as written requires PEP 426 is that he needs a standard serializable format to list dependencies... but he actually defines such a format about 10 lines above for the static bootstrap-requirements key, i.e. a list of specifier strings. So it actually makes more sense to use that for dynamic requirements too for internal consistency, and leave PEP 426 out of it.
If you can avoid blocking on metadata 2.0 entirely, that's even better :) Cheers, Nick. > > -n
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
