On 23 February 2017 at 18:37, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 February 2017 at 08:18, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not a huge fan of having simple boolean toggles in metadata > definitions > > (hence the more elaborate idea of two different kinds of dependency > > declaration), but this may be a case where that's a good way to go, > since it > > would mean that services and tools that care can check it (with a > > recommendation in the spec saying that public index servers SHOULD check > > it), while those that don't care would continue to have a single unified > set > > of dependency declarations to work with. > > While boolean metadata may not be ideal in the general case, I think > it makes sense here. If you want to make it more acceptable, maybe > make it Package-Type, with values "application" or "library". > That gets us back into the world of defining what the various package types mean, and I really don't want to go there :) Instead, I'm thinking in terms of a purely capability based field: "allow_pinned_dependencies", with the default being "False", but actually checking the field also only being a SHOULD for public index servers and a MAY for everything else. That would be enough for downstream tooling to pick up and say "I should treat this as a multi-component module rather than as an individual standalone component", *without* having to inflict the task of understanding the complexities of multi-tier distribution systems onto all component publishers :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
