anatoly techtonik wrote:
> 
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> added the comment:
> 
>>> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@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?

The maintainer of the plugin.

>> 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.

The meta-data format is versioned, so it's well possible to
add new fields to it or make changes in core distutils.

It's even possible to extend if in custom setup scripts,
provided you know your way around in distutils. Have a
look at dist.py. You'll need to write a Distribution sub-class
and register this via the distclass setup() parameter.