On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> I think Metadata 1.3 is done. Who would like to czar?
>
(Apologies for the belated reply, it's been a busy few weeks)
I'm happy to be BDFL delegate for these. I'd like to see PEP 425 updated
with some additional rationale based on Ronald's c
On 31 Oct, 2012, at 13:38, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. Th
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>
>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
>> been stable since May and we are preparing a p
Now with an implementation at the end and possibly better wording for
the required fields. I think it's feature complete.
PEP: 426
Title: Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Daniel Holth
Discussions-To: Distutils SIG
Status: Draft
Type: Sta
I think Metadata 1.3 is done. Who would like to czar?
On Oct 22, 2012 12:53 PM, "Daniel Holth" wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/50e8ea1a17a0
>
> Based on the other "required" field's absence in the wild, only
> "Metadata-Version", "Name", "Version", and "Summary" are required.
> Hopefully a
On 24 Oct, 2012, at 14:48, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. Th
On 24 Oct, 2012, at 14:59, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. Th
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>
>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
>> been stable since May and we are preparing a p
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
>
>> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
>> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
>> been stable since May and we are preparing a p
On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
> been stable since May and we are preparing a patch to support it in
> pip, but we need to earn consensus befor
On 18 Oct, 2012, at 19:29, Daniel Holth wrote:
> I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
> (Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
> been stable since May and we are preparing a patch to support it in
> pip, but we need to earn consensus befor
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/50e8ea1a17a0
Based on the other "required" field's absence in the wild, only
"Metadata-Version", "Name", "Version", and "Summary" are required.
Hopefully a clearer explanation of 0, 1, or many occurrences of each
field.
___
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Daniel Holth writes:
>
> > Another solution comes to mind. Put the description in the payload.
>
> That would work for me, but it would cause extensibility problems if
> anybody later found a use for other formatted fields. I have no
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:14:03 -0400, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> > Daniel Holth writes:
> >
> > > Another solution comes to mind. Put the description in the payload.
> >
> > That would work for me, but it would cause extensibility problem
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Daniel Holth writes:
>
> > Another solution comes to mind. Put the description in the payload.
>
> That would work for me, but it would cause extensibility problems if
> anybody later found a use for other formatted fields. I have no
Daniel Holth writes:
> Another solution comes to mind. Put the description in the payload.
That would work for me, but it would cause extensibility problems if
anybody later found a use for other formatted fields. I have no
intuition for that.
___
Py
I'm really happy with moving the troublesome Description: field to the
payload. Email Policy() is useful too.
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/74868fe8ba17
Metadata 1.3 is a ...
+format with no maximum line length, followed by a blank line and an
+arbitrary payload. It is parseable by the ``email`
The troublesome Description: parses fine -- as long as there is
anything but a \r\n - for example "\r\n " - on successive blank lines.
This tends to happen already.
Another solution comes to mind. Put the description in the payload.
The description can have any form, and the installer can stop par
Daniel Holth writes:
> Tweaked at http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/75474fb879d3
I'll take a look later; I have some other commitments now I should do
first.
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> > Executive summary:
> >
> > You probably should include a full ABNF
On Oct 19, 2012, at 08:07 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
>The email parser is significantly more permissive than the RFC.
Don't forget that the email package now supports policies (experimentally), so
it may be possible to tweak a policy setting to fit the bill. Anyway, it
might at least be interesting
Tweaked at http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/75474fb879d3
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Executive summary:
>
> You probably should include a full ABNF grammar
The legacy PKG-INFO does not have email parse-ability. How about an
example parser implementation instea
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Executive summary:
>
> You probably should include a full ABNF grammar
>
> Daniel Holth writes:
>
> > To support empty lines and lines with indentation with respect to
> > the RFC 822 format, any CRLF character has to be suffixed
Executive summary:
You probably should include a full ABNF grammar
Daniel Holth writes:
> To support empty lines and lines with indentation with respect to
> the RFC 822 format, any CRLF character has to be suffixed by 7 spaces
> followed by a pipe ("|") char. [...]
> This encoding impli
PEP: 427
Title: The Wheel Binary Package Format 0.1
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Daniel Holth
Discussions-To:
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 20-Sep-2012
Post-History:
Abstract
This PEP describes a built-package format for Pyt
PEP: 426
Title: Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.3
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Daniel Holth
Discussions-To: Distutils SIG
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 30 Aug 2012
Abstract
This PEP describes a mechanism for adding me
PEP: 425
Title: Compatibility Tags for Built Distributions
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: 07-Aug-2012
Author: Daniel Holth
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 27-Jul-2012
Python-Version: 3.4
Post-History: 8-Aug-2012
Abstract
This PEP specifies a ta
2012/10/18 Daniel Holth :
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:35:19 -0400
>> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>> 2012/10/18 Daniel Holth :
>>> > Let me know what I need to do to get it accepted, if anything needs to
>>> > be added or revised, or, preferably
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:35:19 -0400
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2012/10/18 Daniel Holth :
>> > Let me know what I need to do to get it accepted, if anything needs to
>> > be added or revised, or, preferably, that it is awesome and you want
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:35:19 -0400
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/10/18 Daniel Holth :
> > Let me know what I need to do to get it accepted, if anything needs to
> > be added or revised, or, preferably, that it is awesome and you want
> > to use it ASAP.
>
> Traditionally, you send the peps to p
2012/10/18 Daniel Holth :
> Let me know what I need to do to get it accepted, if anything needs to
> be added or revised, or, preferably, that it is awesome and you want
> to use it ASAP.
Traditionally, you send the peps to python-dev, so people can bikeshed inline.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
I'd like to submit the Wheel PEPs 425 (filename metadata), 426
(Metadata 1.3), and 427 (wheel itself) for acceptance. The format has
been stable since May and we are preparing a patch to support it in
pip, but we need to earn consensus before including it in the most
widely used installer.
Wheel i
31 matches
Mail list logo
