[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

PEP 345 - request for comments

Dear Maintainers,

PEP 345 [1] describes version 1.2 of the PKG-INFO file that will be
shipped with Python distributions in the future.

Among other fields it also includes a 'Requires-External' field, which
is, as of now, defined like this:

--- snip ---
Each entry contains a string describing some dependency in the system that the
package is to be used. This field is intended to serve as a hint to downstream
package maintainers, and has no semantics which are meaningful to the distutils

The format of a requirement string is a name of an external dependency,
optionally followed by a version declaration within parentheses.

A version declaration is a series of conditional operators and version numbers,
separated by commas. Conditional operators must be one of "<", ">", "<=", ">=",
"==", and "!=". If no operator is provided with a version, the "==" operator is
used by default.

Because they refer to non-Python software releases, version numbers for this
field are not required to conform to the format specified in PEP 386 [3]: they
should correspond to the version scheme used by the external dependency.

Any number of conditional operators can be specified, e.g. the string ">1.0,
!=1.3.4, <2.0" is a legal version declaration.

Notice that there's is no particular rule on the strings to be used.


Requires-External: C
Requires-External: libpng (>=1.5)
--- snip ---

Would Debian maintainers use this field to extract dependencies of a
Python package that have to be handled by the system's package manager?

Does the proposed format match your requirements? Are there any changes
your would like to see incorporated, so that this field eases your
packaging work?

There are no plans to normalise entries in this field to a canonical
name by PyPii [2], which basically means that the mapping between the
identifiers used by upstream and Debian's package names has to be
handled by Debian and/or done by the upstream authors.

It would be great if you could provide some comments, suggestions or
criticism on this topic.

kind regards

[1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/
[2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2009-November/014617.html
  .''`.     Wolodja Wentland    <wentland@cl.uni-heidelberg.de> 
 : :'  :    
 `. `'`     4096R/CAF14EFC 
   `-       081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: