2009/7/8 Eric Smith <e...@trueblade.com>: > I was there, and I've been commenting!
Sorry, I hadn't realised that. Thanks for the correction. > There might have been more discussion after the language summit and the one > open space event I went to. But the focus as I recall was static metadata > and version specification. When I originally brought up static metadata at > the summit, I meant metadata describing the sources in the distribution, so > that we can get rid of setup.py's. From that metadata, I want to be able to > generate .debs, .rpms, .eggs, etc. > > But I think we've veered into metadata that describes what has been > installed. I don't think that's so useful. As I've said, this is private to > the installers. If 2 installers want to communicate with each other about > what they've installed, then they can agree on that data. I just don't find > it generally useful for all installers, and therefore not useful for > distutils. > > I'd like to get back to the metadata that describes the source files. That's > where the real value lies, in my opinion. I'll try and work on a post to > distutils-sig explaining my thinking. OK, that helps a lot. I see how your postings fit into things a little better now. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
