[issue6992] PEP 314 inconsistency (authors/author/maintainer)

[anatoly techtonik]

anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> added the comment:

>> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> added the comment:

>> Yes but fixing this inconsitency can be done on either side:
>> A - remove the maintainer and maintainer_email
>> B - add the Maintainer and Maintainer-email in the metadata

>> If we don't have a use case, I'd go for A/
>
> Having a maintainer for a package is not at all uncommon.
>
> Whether you put that maintainer into a separate field or not
> is really a mix of respect/taste/culture.

Please, be specific. PyPi maintainer or trac-plugin package maintainer
or debian package maintainer? Which should be mentioned in debian
package for a trac plugin uploaded to PyPi for easy_install?

> I'd go for B, since we already have the maintainer setup()
> variable and just need to add the missing meta-data field.
>
> Whether this gets used or not is up to 3rd party code
> using the meta-data to decide and not really a distutils
> question.

Is distutils format extensible? Can you create example of extending
distutils format using this maintainer use case, so that every project
can add their own maintainer fields if they need them? If it is
impossible then I suggest to stop this discussion and start planning
extensible distutils2 format with setup2.py and other2 files.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6992>
_______________________________________