Python package distribution standards

[Ben Finney]

Howdy all,

I'm cross-posting between the Python distutils discussion forum and the
Freedesktop distributions discussion forum. If you think any OS-specific
discussion forums need to be involved, please ask a representative to
join one or more of these forums so the discussion doesn't get too
attenuated.

For a number of weeks now, the Python package distribution standards
have been undergoing intensive scrutiny in the wake of much face-to-face
discussion at Pycon 2009. Many goals are being juggled in an attempt to
get a beneficial result for everyone affected by these standards.

The discussion has reached a point of some “open questions”
<URL:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/105237> on the
current draft of PEP 376 <URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376/>,
which has re-raised the issue of how Python distribution standards could
be improved with regard to OS distribution packaging requirements.

I've made a case for metadata that would be beneficial to OS packagers
<URL:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/105237/focus=105270>,
but I am not very cognizant of the needs of specific OS packaging
systems. We need input from others who know and care about how Python
packages should fit into specific operating system package management
systems.

If you feel you have constructive input on how Python's package
distribution metadata can be improved for the needs of OS packagers
(along with other needs being targeted by such metadata), please read
the standards drafts, join this discussion, and weigh in now while the
topic is hot.

-- 
 \        “The industrial system is profoundly dependent on commercial |
  `\   television and could not exist in its present form without it.” |
_o__)        —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The New Industrial State_, 1967 |
Ben Finney