RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 28 16:15:37 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-August/121493.html

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> The only thing I really care about is the namespacing, for the same
> reasons the IETF wrote RFC 6648, as Petri linked earlier [1].
> Establishing proper name registration rules can categorically
> eliminate a bunch of problems further down the line (such as the past
> confusion between which metadata entries were defined by PEPs and
> which were setuptools-specific extensions that other tools might not
> understand).
>
>
> I'm happy with any form of a namespace to be quite honest. I have a bit of
> a preference for no or flat namespace but i'm perfectly fine with a PyPI
> based
> namespace. The important part is a defined way to extend the data that
> even when tools don't understand the extended data they can losslessly
> move it around from setup.cfg/setup.py/whatever to METADATA and
> any other format, even if they themselves don't utilize it, leaving it
> intact
> for tools that _do_ utilize it.

Oh, yes, I care about that part, too, as without that there's no
reason to define a metadata extension format at all :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-August/121493.html below:

[Python-Dev] Edits to Metadata 1.2 to add extras (optional dependencies)