Message93364
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
>> The meta-data is only used by PyPI and perhaps a handful
>> of other tools.
> [...]
>> The addition of the maintainer meta-data field would
>> not hurt anyone and create more consistency.
>
> since PyPI has its own Role system (owner, maintainer) managed by the
> user who registered the distribution, independantly from the Metadata,
> what use case are you thinking about for a new Maintainer field ?
PyPI is just an application using the meta-data - and the only one
I know of.
I'm just suggesting to add the meta-data field in order to recreate
consistency - not advocating that setup() parameter or its use.
> When an author is not maintaining a package anymore, and an extra name
> has to be added, we previously said that this extra name could be added
> in the author field.
>
> So what would be the gain to distinguish maintainers form authors, and
> how PyPI will deal with the fact that a package will have maintainers in
> its metadata, and maintainers at PyPI that may differ ?
That's up for the package owners to sort out. I would expect the
maintainer to do a new release and update the maintainer field. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-09-30 13:02:04 | lemburg | set | recipients:
+ lemburg, pitrou, techtonik, tarek |
2009-09-30 13:02:02 | lemburg | link | issue6992 messages |
2009-09-30 13:02:02 | lemburg | create | |
|