[Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
Previously, there was some urgency to getting PEP 426 approved, as it was one of the conditions on getting wheel support into pip. However, Daniel revised the wheel spec to allow metadata v1.1, thus removing that dependency (since wheel dependencies work almost as well with the de facto setuptools metadata as they will with PEP 426). As one of the main reactions I'm getting to PEP 426 at the moment is a lot of confusion about how it fits into the larger picture of fixing Python packaging, I'm considering postponing acceptance of the standard until after PyCon US. This will give me time to document more of the longer term possibilities for addressing deficiencies in the current packaging ecosystem, as well as being clear on *which parts* of the problem PEP 426 is trying to solve (as that is one of the other complaints I have received: PEP 426 doesn't solve every problem we currently have. It isn't meant to, but that may not be clear because proposals for other parts of the problem aren't even being discussed). Packaging will no doubt once again be a topic at the language summit and of course we have the mini-summit on Friday night and the panel on Saturday, all of which should help me address peoples concerns without their eyes glazing over at the walls of text I tend to publish when trying to explain complex topics over email. Thoughts? Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? +1 ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
-1 The same arguments will just be repeated again. On Feb 20, 2013 4:45 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? +1 ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote: -1 The same arguments will just be repeated again. I'm not so sure - at the moment, I'm basically saying trust me, I have a plan for this. I do have a plan, and I've shared bits and pieces of it with different people, but not put any of it together as coherent proposals (not even as an essay on python-notes, which is what I'm working on now). So I guess I'm really asking if there are any major plans people have for the next month or so that hinge on using PEP 426 metadata rather than setuptools metadata? If not, I think it's worth my taking the time to give the PEP more context. Rolling out wheel support should be enough to keep people busy for a while... Cheers, Nick. On Feb 20, 2013 4:45 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: Thoughts? +1 ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote: -1 The same arguments will just be repeated again. I'm not so sure - at the moment, I'm basically saying trust me, I have a plan for this. I do have a plan, and I've shared bits and pieces of it with different people, but not put any of it together as coherent proposals (not even as an essay on python-notes, which is what I'm working on now). So I guess I'm really asking if there are any major plans people have for the next month or so that hinge on using PEP 426 metadata rather than setuptools metadata? If not, I think it's worth my taking the time to give the PEP more context. Rolling out wheel support should be enough to keep people busy for a while... As long as nobody minds that wheel uses Provides-Extra, utf-8 and description-in-body right now. I don't think those particular features are controversial. The current distribute (pkg_resources) implementation only parses requirements out of metadata if it is inside a .dist-info directory and only uses requires.txt if looking inside .egg-info (and does not have to open or parse PKG-INFO at all in this case). So if you are using .dist-info (used by wheel) then you need Metadata 1.2+ and if you are representing a very significant portion of setuptools projects you will need Provides-Extra. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] Delay acceptance of PEP 426 until after PyCon US?
On 21 Feb 2013 02:12, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote: -1 The same arguments will just be repeated again. I'm not so sure - at the moment, I'm basically saying trust me, I have a plan for this. I do have a plan, and I've shared bits and pieces of it with different people, but not put any of it together as coherent proposals (not even as an essay on python-notes, which is what I'm working on now). So I guess I'm really asking if there are any major plans people have for the next month or so that hinge on using PEP 426 metadata rather than setuptools metadata? If not, I think it's worth my taking the time to give the PEP more context. Rolling out wheel support should be enough to keep people busy for a while... As long as nobody minds that wheel uses Provides-Extra, utf-8 and description-in-body right now. I don't think those particular features are controversial. The current distribute (pkg_resources) implementation only parses requirements out of metadata if it is inside a .dist-info directory and only uses requires.txt if looking inside .egg-info (and does not have to open or parse PKG-INFO at all in this case). So if you are using .dist-info (used by wheel) then you need Metadata 1.2+ and if you are representing a very significant portion of setuptools projects you will need Provides-Extra. OK, I can live with that. Aside from a couple of small tweaks and additions, I think the format is mostly fine, but I want to get clearer transition plans in place before I flip the status to Accepted. Cheers, Nick. ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
