RetroSearch Browse

Tue Apr 12 20:46:38 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110638.html

On Apr 07, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>> On 4/5/2011 11:52 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>
>>     DEFAULT_VERSION_RE = re.compile(r'(?P<version>\d+\.\d(?:\.\d+)?)')
>>
>>     __version__ = pkgutil.get_distribution('elle').metadata['version']
>>
>> The RE as given won't match alpha, beta, rc, dev, and post suffixes that are
>> discussed in POP 386.
>
>Indeed, I really don't like the RE suggestion - better to tell people
>to just move the version info into the static config file and use
>pkgutil to make it available as shown. That solves the build time vs
>install time problem as well.

I'm actually going to remove the regexp example from the PEP.  It's
distracting, incorrect, and unnecessary (give that `packaging` will have such
an API).

>Yep, this is why the version information should be in the setup.cfg
>file, and hence available via pkgutil without loading the module
>first.

If the version information is in the setup.cfg, then the question is, what's
the code look like to get that stuffed into a module's __version__ attribute?
If it's not the pkgutil ugliness, what is it?  And does it work whether your
in say the source tree of your uninstalled module, or in a Python where the
package was installed via they OS?

-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20110412/9f902162/attachment.pgp>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110638.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 396, Module Version Numbers