[Distutils] PEP 386 status - last round here ?

[ssteinerX@gmail.com]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> 2>      The explanation for "suggest_rational_version" is stubbed out in the README.txt file:
>> 
>>                XXX explain here suggest_rational_version
>> 
>>        it should be documented what we expect it to do and that leads into...
>> 
> 
> This README.txt is a bit outdated. It's an old copy of PEP 386 (which explains suggest_rational_version)
>> 4>      The [#requrires] reference is missing from the README.txt file
> I'll update it using the latest PEP 376 text


Ok, I'll look for those when I pull later tonight?

> 
>> 3>      test_suggest_rational_version needs a more comprehensive test suite (like all the version numbers from PyPi).  Right now it only has 11 cases and they're all pretty mild though the doc asserts success rates on PyPi that are much higher.  This should be done so that we can insure that the algorithm stays stable (and hopefully improves) in future versions.  (I will create this expanded test using PyPi data, if requested).
> 
> That would be great,

May I have access please?

>> 5>      There is no cross reference to any other non-python project using this scheme.  There is a note that  "During Pycon, members of the Python, Ubuntu and Fedora community worked on a version standard that would be acceptable for everyone"  but there is no evidence that anyone else has agreed to this standard and, particularly, to this reference implementation.
> 
> I don't think any project uses this scheme yet, besides some Python projects. What happened is that when we worked on this scheme, Toshio (Fedora) and Matthias (Ubuntu/Debian) made sure it would be acceptable for their needs to translate it in their own schemes automatically.
> 
> For instance, RPMs want to avoid date-based versions, and Debian packages avoids "-" characters.

Ok, it would be great to have an example of an RPM or deb package showing the direct translation but no big deal.

S