[Distutils] RFC: Updating PEP 345

[Tarek Ziadé]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why change the name? A different name isn't going to be better enough to
>> > be
>> > worth the hassle. Deprecation is waaaay overrated as a tool for reducing
>> > the
>> > pain of making people change their code or habits.
>>
>> I don't think it's a good idea to have a different name in PKG-INFO
>> and in the arguments to describe
>> the same element. we should have the same name everywhere for
>> consistency at the end.
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong about adding a simple deprecation warning
>> here, It won't happen again
>> for quite a while.
>
> People who install packages freak out over warnings.  If you could do a
> warning during a PyPI upload, then someone who can actually make a change
> might see it.  People installing a package should not see this warning.  I
> feel very strongly about this as a general rule - putting messages intended
> for packagers into the output presented during installation is distracting
> and disconcerting and useless.
>
> In the "check" command it would be entirely proper to issue a warning.  But
> no one is going to re-release a project just to fix the spelling of this
> argument in setup.py, and a lot of libraries just don't get updated often,
> or people deliberately use old versions to avoid regression.  So outside of
> the check command it should not cause any warning.

Right, sounds like

>
> --
> Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org
>



-- 
Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/