On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11 March 2016 at 19:41, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > At Enthought we have been trying to use PEP 425 tags to include its > metadata > > in our packages. It has been harder than expected because of missing > > information in PEP 425, and maybe inconsistencies with what pip actually > > does. > > > > I think PEP 425 should be updated to take into account pip actual > > implementation: > > > > 1. python tag and pypy: the PEP says "the version is py_version_nodot . > > CPython gets away with no dot, but if one is needed the underscore _ is > used > > instead. PyPy should probably use its own versions here pp18 , pp19 ". > This > > is not what pip does as of version 8.1.0 for pypy. Instead, the version > is > > python major + sys.pypy_version_info.major + sys.pypy_version_info.minor. > > > > 2. It would be nice to know how to deal with other alternative > > implementations as well. Would the scheme in 1. work for jython, etc... ? > > > > 3. The abi tag should at least be specified for cpython IMO. E.g. the > > meaning of `m`, `u` and `d` should be clearly specified. > > > > While the PEP mentions each implementation community is welcome to use > the > > abi tag as they wish, given that in practice it is defined in pip, I > think > > that should be specified as well. > > > > Do the above make sense ? If so, I could spend some time to update it (or > > create a new amending PEP ?) > > Proposed errrata & minor admentments for PEP 425 can be submitted as a > PyPUG issue with a PR against > > https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/#platform-compatibility-tags > > (the actual technical details of the proposed changes should still be > discussed here) > Up: would it help doing the PR first as a basic for discussion ?
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
