[Distutils] distlib and wheel metadata

[Nick Coghlan]

On 23 February 2017 at 18:37, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 February 2017 at 08:18, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not a huge fan of having simple boolean toggles in metadata
> definitions
> > (hence the more elaborate idea of two different kinds of dependency
> > declaration), but this may be a case where that's a good way to go,
> since it
> > would mean that services and tools that care can check it (with a
> > recommendation in the spec saying that public index servers SHOULD check
> > it), while those that don't care would continue to have a single unified
> set
> > of dependency declarations to work with.
>
> While boolean metadata may not be ideal in the general case, I think
> it makes sense here. If you want to make it more acceptable, maybe
> make it Package-Type, with values "application" or "library".
>

That gets us back into the world of defining what the various package types
mean, and I really don't want to go there :)

Instead, I'm thinking in terms of a purely capability based field:
"allow_pinned_dependencies", with the default being "False", but actually
checking the field also only being a SHOULD for public index servers and a
MAY for everything else.

That would be enough for downstream tooling to pick up and say "I should
treat this as a multi-component module rather than as an individual
standalone component", *without* having to inflict the task of
understanding the complexities of multi-tier distribution systems onto all
component publishers :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20170223/d8890032/attachment-0001.html>