[Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3 (original) (raw)

Donald Stufft donald.stufft at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 10:05:39 CEST 2012

I think json probably makes the most sense, it's already part of the stdlib for 2.6+ and while it has some issues with human editablity, there's no reason why this json file couldn't be auto generated from another data structure by the "package creation tool" that exists outside of the stdlib (or inside, but outside the scope of this proposal).

Which is really part of what I like a lot about this proposal, how you come about the final product doesn't matter, distutils, bento, yet-uncreated-tool, manually crafting tar balls and files, you could describe your data in yaml, python, or going towards more magical ends of things, it could be automatically generated from your filesystem. It doesn't matter, all that matters is you create your final archive with the agreed upon structure and the agreed upon dist.(yml|json|ini) and any compliant installer should be able to install it.

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:

Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan gmail.com (http://gmail.com)> writes:

> ini-style is often good enough, and failing that there's json. Or, you > just depend on PyYAML :) >

Except when PyYAML is packaged and distributed using dist.yaml :-) Regards, Vinay Sajip

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org (mailto:Python-Dev at python.org) http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120622/72049458/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list