# PEP 643: Metadata for Package Source Distributions **URL:** \ **Category:** Packaging\ **Created:** [October 26, 2020, 7:04pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-643-metadata-for-package-source-distributions/5577 "2020-10-26T19:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![pf\_moore](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/pf_moore/32/35_2.png) [@pf\_moore](https://discuss.python.org/u/pf_moore)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 7:27pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-643-metadata-for-package-source-distributions/5577/7 "2020-10-28T19:27:34Z")
Responses have so far been mostly positive, and the discussion has been fairly quiet. I’m going to take that as implying that people are generally OK with this, so I’ll do a tidy-up pass on the PEP this weekend, with the intention of maybe giving it another week and then submitting it for a decision. If anyone feels this is too quick, or there’s more to discuss, please speak up. The biggest open question is [this](https://discuss.python.org/t/sdists-again-metadata-standardisation-incremental-update/5505/41) - @xafer pointed out that `Requires-Python` doesn’t support markers, so not allowing it to be `Dynamic` limits how projects can use it. I don’t have a particularly good answer here - I’d rather not drop it from the “not allowed to be dynamic” list, but I don’t want to make it impossible for projects to write their metadata. I think I’m going to have to err on the side of caution and remove it, but I’d be very happy if someone wanted to persuade me to leave it 🙂 --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-643-metadata-for-package-source-distributions/5577)._