On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > > In any case, as I said before, I don't have an issue with the fields > all being declared as being for informational purposes only. My issue > is only with recommendations for automated tool behavior that permit > one project's author to exercise authority over another project's > installation. Skipping over a lot of other replies between you and I because I think that we disagree on a lot but that's all moot if we agree here. I have no problems with Obsoletes, Conflicts, Requires, and Provides types of fields are marked informational. In fact, there are many cases where packages are overzealous in their use of Requires right now that cause distributions to patch the dependency information in the package metadata. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121210/da170659/attachment.html>
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