RetroSearch Browse

Wed Sep 23 10:37:45 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-September/091989.html

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:49:16AM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> While it's a good idea to put up some form of meta-data
> into an index, I wonder why you are using setup.cfg
> for this.
> 
> setup.cfg has traditionally been used to configure distutils,
> not to define meta-data. As such you wouldn't want to
> put such a configuration file up on PyPI.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better use a new file for this (with the
> same syntax), e.g. metadata.cfg ?! This would then just
> contain the meta data that needs to be published.

IIRC the goal was to make minimal changes and setup.cfg is known
already.  It's use is similar too: it configures the setup.py script
with static data.

PyPI could only extract the [setup:*] sections if you'r worried about
it having random configuration from developers.  I don't think this is
enough of a argument in favour or not of a metadata file separate from
setup.cfg.

Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-September/091989.html below:

[Python-Dev] Distutils ML wrap-up: setup.cfg new format