On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Agreed, and this is the kind of thing a v1.3 metadata PEP could > define. It just needs to be properly namespaced, and the obvious > namespacing mechanism is PyPI project names.
The biggest reason I have against namespacing them is it makes moving from experimental to standard easier, but I'm ok with some form of a namespace. The biggest reason I see against using PyPI names as the namespace is it needlessly ties a piece of data to the original creator. Similar to how right now you could write a less hacky setuptools, but in order to do so you need to continue to use the setuptools package name (see distribute). Using PyPI names means that in the requires-dist example it would be something like setuptools-requires-dist, and even if I make my own tool that supports the same concept as setuptools's requires-dist I would need to use setuptools-requires-dist. The concept of metadata I think should be divorced from specific implementations. Obviously there are going to be some implementation specific issues but I think it's much cleaner to have a x-requires-dist that any implementation can use than to have whoever-invented-it-first-requires-dist or a twenty-different-forms-of-requires-dist.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
