On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
No PEP describes how METADATA supports setuptools' extras.
i.e. Provides-Extras. maybe we should at least add a footnote to
PEP-345, or
but my question was what are you adding, if anything,
that warranted it having Metadata-Version: 2.0?
I believe that the fields 'Private-Version', 'Obsoleted-By',
'Setup-Requires-Dist',
'Extension' and 'Provides-Extra' were added on top of the 1.2 metadata in an
early version of PEP 426,
There is always going to be multiple files, it’s kind of silly to tie the
definition of
the dist-info directory to the pydist.json when that’s perhaps not the file
you
care about how to interpret. How do you interpret the RECORD file?
The INSTALLER file?
The versioned definition of
On 27 February 2014 11:22, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling it version 3 is a fine solution, and the spec has changed
enough from key/value 2.0 to json 2.0, and grown a year older, that
it's also appropriate to bump the version again.
appropriate to bump? key/value 2.0 was never a
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters which number we use in the METADATA key/value
metadata... it's not even checked by anything.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 February 2014 18:16, Vinay
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but the METADATA version of the metadata is not a standard.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it
Unfortunately only follow the PEP-ratified standards means stop
doing useful packaging until we have some additional standards.
Vinay had mentioned the pypy ABI tagging. I'd hoped implementations
would be interested in figuring this out, but I'm not sure the PyPy
group is or should be very
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
but my question was what are you adding, if anything,
that warranted it having Metadata-Version: 2.0?
I believe that the fields 'Private-Version', 'Obsoleted-By',
'Setup-Requires-Dist',
'Extension' and
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
No PEP describes how METADATA supports setuptools' extras.
i.e. Provides-Extras. maybe we should at least add a footnote to
PEP-345, or *something*, so this is not a mystery down the road where this
came from, and how it
On Feb 23, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Vinay brought to my attention that bdist_wheel currently publishes
pydist.json files that claim to contain content in the metadata 2.0
format. I was aware that Daniel had been experimenting with generating
pydist.json files,
On 27 Feb 2014 04:00, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
I will accordingly be updating the defined metadata version in PEP 426
to 3.0, and including an explicit admonition to *never* include
experimental metadata (whether in the base format or as part of an
experimental extension) in
On Feb 26, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Feb 2014 04:00, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
I will accordingly be updating the defined metadata version in PEP 426
to 3.0, and including an explicit admonition to *never* include
experimental
On 26 February 2014 21:51, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Well I don't really care if we do 3.0 or 2.0 it's just a number. I just mean
that you shouldn't parse a pydist.json inside of a Wheel unless you know
it's inside of a Wheel with Wheel-Version:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2014 21:51, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
Well I don't really care if we do 3.0 or 2.0 it's just a number. I just mean
that you shouldn't parse a pydist.json inside of a Wheel unless you know
it's
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:37 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If Vinay is happy with that last option for handling the current
bdist_wheel misbehaviour
that would mean we could leave the metadata version alone
I've changed distlib to ignore pydist.json for wheels with version
If Vinay is happy with that last option for handling the current bdist_wheel
misbehaviour
that would mean we could leave the metadata version alone
I've changed distlib to ignore pydist.json for wheels with version 1.0, where
METADATA is used instead. Note that bdist_wheel also puts a
On 26 February 2014 22:07, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
We should probably start versioning dist-info directories.
Probably. I'm not actually sure there's a formal spec for what's in a
dist-info directory TBH. There's definitely a plus anything else
people put there clause in practice,
There is also the 'generator' field in pydist.json : generator:
bdist_wheel (0.22.0). At the time I decided to do pydist.json I
thought I was tracking a spec that would be done any day now, but it
didn't work out that way. Do I recall an earlier complaint that I got
the filename wrong?
It's a bit
On 27 Feb 2014 08:41, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2014 22:07, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
We should probably start versioning dist-info directories.
Probably. I'm not actually sure there's a formal spec for what's in a
dist-info directory TBH. There's
It makes perfect sense to version the dist-info directory.
You don’t know how to interpret the files inside that directory without it.
You have to rely on heuristics and guessing.
Not if you specify up front how it will work, which is doable.
It's not clear to me if you mean putting the
On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It makes perfect sense to version the dist-info directory.
You don’t know how to interpret the files inside that directory without it.
You have to rely on heuristics and guessing.
Not if you specify up front how it
On 27 Feb 2014 08:37, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If Vinay is happy with that last option for handling the current
bdist_wheel misbehaviour
that would mean we could leave the metadata version alone
I've changed distlib to ignore pydist.json for wheels with version 1.0,
where
On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Feb 2014 08:37, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If Vinay is happy with that last option for handling the current
bdist_wheel misbehaviour
that would mean we could leave the metadata version alone
PEP 425 explicitly covers that.
It says The version is py_version_nodot. CPython gets away with no dot, but if
one is needed the underscore _ is used instead. PyPy should probably use its
own versions here pp18, pp19.
The probably leaves some room for doubt as to what exactly is meant:
On 27 Feb 2014 10:16, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
PEP 425 explicitly covers that.
It says The version is py_version_nodot. CPython gets away with no dot,
but if one is needed the underscore _ is used instead. PyPy should probably
use its own versions here pp18, pp19.
The
Wheel-Version: Whatever-We-Formally-Add-Pydistjson-To-Wheel in.
PEP427/Wheel-1.0 has this line:5.
{distribution}-{version}.dist-info/METADATA is Metadata version 1.1 or
greater format metadata.
although it says version 1.1 or greater, I guess we're saying it
indirectly excludes metadata
However, people do know that I'm not planning to write all these spec
updates myself, right? I've claimed 426/440/459, but if you wait for me to
write the others as well, we're going to be waiting a long time.
I know Donald already has a very early draft of wheel 2.0 in the works,
but I'm
Calling it version 3 is a fine solution, and the spec has changed
enough from key/value 2.0 to json 2.0, and grown a year older, that
it's also appropriate to bump the version again.
appropriate to bump? key/value 2.0 was never a thing.
I don't like switching to 3.0, unless we really have
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com wrote:
Calling it version 3 is a fine solution, and the spec has changed
enough from key/value 2.0 to json 2.0, and grown a year older, that
it's also appropriate to bump the version again.
appropriate to bump? key/value 2.0
btw, what is in wheel's 2.0 METADATA file that is 2.0? and what's using
it?
can't bdist_wheel at least stop setting metadata to 2.0 from here on?
METADATA is the key/value file that setuptools uses when it finds a
.dist-info directory. It resembles pre-JSON PEP 426. It can be
Vinay brought to my attention that bdist_wheel currently publishes
pydist.json files that claim to contain content in the metadata 2.0
format. I was aware that Daniel had been experimenting with generating
pydist.json files, but I didn't realise that bdist_wheel did it by
default, nor that it used
31 matches
Mail list logo
