Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120621/0aa11f61/attachment.html below:
<div><span style="color: rgb(160, 160, 168); ">On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Alex Clark wrote:</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><div><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>On 6/21/12 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Paul Moore wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>End users should not need packaging tools on their machines.</div></blockquote><div>Sort of riffing on this idea, I cannot seem to find a specification for</div><div>what a Python</div><div>package actually is.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>FWIW according to distutils[1], a package is: a module or modules inside </div><div>another module[2]. So e.g.::</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> foo.py is a module</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>and:</div><div><br></div><div> foo/__init__.py</div><div> foo/foo.py</div><div><br></div><div>is a simple package containing the following modules:</div><div><br></div><div> import foo, foo.foo</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Alex</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] </div><div><a href="http://docs.python.org/distutils/introduction.html#general-python-terminology">http://docs.python.org/distutils/introduction.html#general-python-terminology</a></div><div><br></div><div>[2] And a distribution is a compressed archive of a package, in case </div><div>that's not clear.</div><div><br></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div>Right, i'm actually talking about distributions. (As is everyone else in this thread).</div><div>And that a definition is not a specification.</div><div><br></div><div>What i'm trying to get at is with a standard package format where all the metadata is</div><div>able to get gotten at without the packaging lib (distutils/setuptools cannot get at</div><div>metadata without using distutils or setuptools). It would need to be required that</div><div>this serves as the one true source of metadata and that other tools can add certain</div><div>types of metadata to this format.</div><div><br></div><div>If say distutils2 wrote a package that adhered to a certain standard, and wrote all the</div><div>information that distutils2 knows about how to install said package (what files, names,</div><div>versions, dependencies etc) to a file (say PKG-INFO) that contained only "common"</div><div>standard information then another tool (say bento) could take that package, and install</div><div>it.</div><div><br></div><div>The idea i'm hoping for is to stop worrying about one implementation over another and</div><div>hoping to create a common format that all the tools can agree upon and create/install.</div><div><br>
</div>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo
| Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4