> No. See above comment. If exposing this information has no value then > don't do it. If it does have value, then we are blessing it - and > therefore blessing it *over* other formats. No: not *over*. Only over formats that don't get exposed. However, the PEP 345 data are *already* exposed, via HTML, JSON, XML-RPC. So they are much more prominently presented than what I'm proposing to do. I fail to see why just extracting the egg-info would be exposing it *over* the PEP 345 data. >> The tool in question is tl.eggdepend. It can easily support both kinds >> of metadata. >> > I couldn't find any references "tl.eggdepend" on the web. It is a minor > point though. Oops, see http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tl.eggdeps > As in exported by PyPI though an API / interface? Sure. See, for example, http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pep345demo/json It's also available through the XML-RPC release_data. > Saying that they *could* is more empty words if > our *actions* promote the use of another format. But they do. Please stop saying that they might not, when they actually do (and have been for a while). >> It's just that no package is using it (except for pep345demo). >> >> As for a bit: how long exactly? > Distutils2 1a2 will be released in the next few days. Sure. But when can tools computing dependencies for widely used packages actually expect that these metadata will be available? > Promoting another format in preference to distutils2 will very much > prolong that. IT WILL BE NOT IN PREFERENCE TO DISTUTILS2. Regards, Martin
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