On 28 October 2015 at 23:39, 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.
pip requires: - distribution name - install_requires [+extras] today. It will want external dependencies in future (and in the spec I put forward build dependencies would be obtained earlier so could be skipped). I'd rather not invent a *new* format for handling both of these, but i'm ok if Donald and Nick specifically are. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig