No I just forgot the syntax so I looked it up.
On Jun 23, 2013 7:58 PM, "Vinay Sajip" wrote:
> Daniel Holth gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> > Here is the setuptools extras+conditionals format. It just separates
> > them with a colon:
>
> Thanks, but I've already seen that. The example I gave showed how
Daniel Holth gmail.com> writes:
> Here is the setuptools extras+conditionals format. It just separates
> them with a colon:
Thanks, but I've already seen that. The example I gave showed how that was
migrated to the PEP 426 format as pymeta.json :-)
Did I miss anything?
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
>> * References wheel and warehouse from legacy metadata appendix
>
> It may also be worth mentioning that:
>
> * distlib supports converting legacy metadata to the new format; it's as
> simple as:
>
> fro
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> * References wheel and warehouse from legacy metadata appendix
It may also be worth mentioning that:
* distlib supports converting legacy metadata to the new format; it's as
simple as:
from distlib.metadata import Metadata
metadata = Metadata(path='PKG-I
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> New versions of PEP 426 and PEP 440 are up on python.org:
>
Thanks for the update; I'm in the process of updating distlib to provide
support for the updated spec. The tip version of distlib provides good
coverage for all except the very latest updates to the
On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Alex Clark wrote:
> Hi Noah,
>
>
> Noah Kantrowitz coderanger.net> writes:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:33 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM, anatoly techtonik
> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could you, please, share the log for
The short list of required fields is also based on what is actually in
common use. If you compare to 1.1 instead of 1.2 it's a lot closer.
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Hi Noah,
Noah Kantrowitz coderanger.net> writes:
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:33 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM, anatoly techtonik
gmail.com> wrote:
> > Could you, please, share the log format+example, so that we can
experiment with it?
> >
> > ping
>
>
On 23 June 2013 13:53, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I think I'll just move the summary back up into the core metadata. You
> can't make a sane index server without it, and it used to be mandatory, so
> "maybe mandatory, maybe not" just makes things more complicated than they
> need to be rather than sim
anatoly techtonik gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM, anatoly techtonik
gmail.com> wrote:Could you, please, share the log format+example, so that we
can experiment with it?
>
>
> ping
+1. I'm wavering between: accepting they are gone forever, and hoping they
get fixed AS
On 23 Jun 2013 21:09, "Paul Moore" wrote:
>
> On 23 June 2013 08:05, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> PEP 426 has now been updated based on the feedback on this thread (and
>> to handle some "todo" items that were pending anyway):
>> http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/3f733fe7c06c
>
>
> Sorry I didn't think
On 23 June 2013 08:05, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> PEP 426 has now been updated based on the feedback on this thread (and
> to handle some "todo" items that were pending anyway):
> http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/3f733fe7c06c
>
Sorry I didn't think of this sooner, but I don't see in the PEP a brief
summ
On 20 June 2013 23:07, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> New versions of PEP 426 and PEP 440 are up on python.org:
>
> PEP 426 (metadata 2.0): http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/
> PEP 440 (version spec): http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440/
>
> (as before, not including them inline due to sheer leng
On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:33 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM, anatoly techtonik
> wrote:
> Could you, please, share the log format+example, so that we can experiment
> with it?
>
> ping
Additional assistance is not required for this project. Thank you for your
in
14 matches
Mail list logo
