On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
