Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> I'm just suggesting to add the meta-data field in order to recreate >> consistency - not advocating that setup() parameter or its use. > > Yes but fixing this inconsitency can be done on either side: > A - remove the maintainer and maintainer_email > B - add the Maintainer and Maintainer-email in the metadata > > While I understand your PoV about the fact that B/ is not impacting > existing packages and doesn't require any deprecation, I would like to > find some use cases for having such fields in the Metadata, other than > fixing the inconsistency. > > If we don't have a use case, I'd go for A/
Having a maintainer for a package is not at all uncommon. Whether you put that maintainer into a separate field or not is really a mix of respect/taste/culture. I'd go for B, since we already have the maintainer setup() variable and just need to add the missing meta-data field. Whether this gets used or not is up to 3rd party code using the meta-data to decide and not really a distutils question. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6992> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
