PEP 722: Dependency specification for single-file scripts

[brettcannon]

@P403n1x87

s a mapping between module paths and packages available from PyPI?

Nope. See Record the top-level names of a wheel in `METADATA`? - #52 by thejcannon as a discussion about recording at least the top-level names.

@pf_moore

That’s up to Brett, not me, but I’d be surprised if he accepts both. The pushback from the “too many options” crowd would be immense (and probably justified, IMO).

I too would be surprised. But rejection of both PEPs is also possible, so who knows. As of right now I’m trying not to bias myself until we can try some user studies and see what the reactions are (I already have an opinion simply based on personal experience, but I want to avoid as much bias a possible in making the final decision as I can by not unconsciously discounting any feedback we get from the target audience of the PEPs).

@pf_moore

@brettcannon if you want to revise your schedule for when you make a decision based on the fact that these points have come up, I’m fine with that, but FWIW, I will commit to having these comments addressed before Monday 14th.

Honestly, the August 14th was more to make sure Ofek was serious enough to write a PEP and to try and get overall PEP discussions done without them dragging on for a month. I definitely do not consider that deadline a hard one but more of an aspirational one. It seems this topic, though, is nicely staying on-topic and reaching convergence, so I’m not concerned about PEP 722 (I haven’t read the PEP 723 thread yet, though ).