Hi,
I am forwarding a mail from Catalog-sig regarding two new trove categories
for Buildout recipes and extensions. Those who publish Buildout recipes and
extensions to PyPI, please use the new trove classifiers in addition to
the existing "Framework :: Buildout".
If you are developing a recip
On 2011-1-26 04:27, Baiju M wrote:
Hi,
I am forwarding a mail from Catalog-sig regarding two new trove categories
for Buildout recipes and extensions. Those who publish Buildout recipes and
extensions to PyPI, please use the new trove classifiers in addition to
the existing "Framework :: Bui
>> If you are developing a recipe, use this classifier:
>>
>>classifiers=[
>> ...
>> "Framework :: Buildout",
>> "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe",
>
> Doesn't "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe" already imply "Framework ::
> Buildout" ?
If it indeed could have meant "Framework
On 1/26/11 10:40 , "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
If you are developing a recipe, use this classifier:
classifiers=[
...
"Framework :: Buildout",
"Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe",
Doesn't "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe" already imply "Framework ::
Buildout" ?
If it indee
>>> Doesn't "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe" already imply "Framework ::
>>> Buildout" ?
>>
>> If it indeed could have meant "Framework :: Buildout :: Extension"
>> instead, and if "Framework :: Buildout :: Extension" and
>> "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe" are indeed different things, then:
>> n
>>> Doesn't "Framework :: Buildout :: Recipe" already imply "Framework ::
>>> Buildout" ?
>> [...]
> That's not what I meant exactly. What I meant that is you declare a
> Trove classifier "A :: B :: C" aren't you implicitly declaring "A :: B"
> and "A" as well, so you don't need to specify them se
