Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On 17 September 2014 11:23, Donald Stufft wrote: > I think that’s what we all want, the difference is that myself and some > others don’t think it’s acceptable to build ontop of things which aren’t > standardized. We’ve had ~15 years of implementation defined “standards”, I > don’t think blessing

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

> On Sep 16, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: > > From: Donald Stufft > > >> Technically that was a PEP 426 change. > > Yes, and I haven't yet changed distlib to remove support for the older "foo > (>=X.Y)" form in the earlier version of the PEP. > > >> Yea, my “problem” with distlib

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

From: Donald Stufft > Technically that was a PEP 426 change. Yes, and I haven't yet changed distlib to remove support for the older "foo (>=X.Y)" form in the earlier version of the PEP. > Yea, my “problem” with distlib was always that I think Vinay and I wanted two > different things from i

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

> On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > On 17 Sep 2014 03:02, "Vinay Sajip" > wrote: > > > > From: Paul Moore mailto:p.f.mo...@gmail.com>> > > > > > > > One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not > > > particularly in the sp

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On 17 Sep 2014 03:02, "Vinay Sajip" wrote: > > From: Paul Moore > > > > One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not > > particularly in the specs, though) is where is the best place to find > > the "canonical" implementations of the various metadata specs. At one > > point, di

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

> Warehouse is currently focused on reimplementation with the future being > standization and spec work for new stuff. > Twine uses the same APIs as distutils does on PyPI, but it A) Verifies TLS > and B) enables uploading an already built > distribution instead of mandating that you build it

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

From: Paul Moore > PS This isn't about pressuring anyone to write such modules. If they > don't exist and are needed, I'm more than willing to help write them, > but only if they are intended as reference implementations, not just > as "yet another version module". I've no particular wish to

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

> On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: > > While on the topic of specs, I'm curious to know what the specification > status is for other elements in the packaging landscape, such as Warehouse or > Twine - are there any PEPs specifying anything new that they do over existing > PyPI/

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

From: Paul Moore > One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not > particularly in the specs, though) is where is the best place to find > the "canonical" implementations of the various metadata specs. At one > point, distlib seemed to be taking that role, but I'm not sure it i

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:12 AM, holger krekel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:01 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not > > > particularly in the specs, though) is where is the be

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > I've no particular wish to set myself > up as a competitor to setuptools and distlib :-) pip install Paul -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein ___ Distutil

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On 16 September 2014 13:12, holger krekel wrote: >> I’m hesitant to include any of this stuff in the stdlib as of right now. It >> wouldn’t >> have helped you here since PEP 440 wasn’t approved until after 3.4 was out >> so the earliest it would be in is Python 3.5. Perhaps once we have most of >

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:01 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > One thing that might be worth clarifying somewhere/somehow (not > > particularly in the specs, though) is where is the best place to find > > the "canonical" implementations of the vari

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

> On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 16 September 2014 12:39, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> Surely having a spec for a requirement has to be part of the sign-off >>> requirements for Metadata 2.0? >> >> Donald already noted that most of these details were moved to PEP 440, >> desp

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On 16 September 2014 12:39, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Surely having a spec for a requirement has to be part of the sign-off >> requirements for Metadata 2.0? > > Donald already noted that most of these details were moved to PEP 440, > despite being in PEP 426 in earlier drafts. > > This had two prima

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

On 16 September 2014 22:59, Paul Moore wrote: > I feel as though I must be missing something obvious, but is there an > actual specification of the syntax and semantics of a requirement > anywhere? I've scanned through the PEP, and while there is a spec for > the environment marker mini-language,

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

Forgot the link: https://packaging.pypa.io/en/latest/version/ > On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > Specifiers are defined in PEP 440 (the >=1.0 parts), however PEP 426 combines > those with the package names to get “foo >=1.0”. The packaging library > implements > the specifi

Re: [Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

Specifiers are defined in PEP 440 (the >=1.0 parts), however PEP 426 combines those with the package names to get “foo >=1.0”. The packaging library implements the specifier part. > On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > I feel as though I must be missing something obvious, but is t

[Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Is there a formal spec for a requirement?

I feel as though I must be missing something obvious, but is there an actual specification of the syntax and semantics of a requirement anywhere? I've scanned through the PEP, and while there is a spec for the environment marker mini-language, there isn't one for a requirement. (As a check I hadn't