Updating the status of completed PEPs

This post is to discuss the status of Accepted PEPs that are in various stages of implementation. I would like to identify completed PEPs so that their statuses can be updated.

PEP 458
Status: In progress
Update status: No

PEP 631
Status: Implemented in PEP 621
Update status: Yes

PEP 632
Status: Implementation in progress. Requires Debian engagement. Few issues exist within pip.
Update status: No

PEP 658
Status: Server-side reference implementation is under review in Warehouse. Client-side reference implementation is complete. The PR in pip needs to be rebased and then merged.
Update status: No

PEP 660
Status: Implemented in pip, flit, Poetry. Draft implementation in place in setuptools. Setuptools implementation and issues around it will be discussed in a separate post.
Update status: No

As things stand, the status of PEP 631 should be updated to ‘Finished’ status. If there are any other packaging PEPs that should be moved to ‘Finished’ status, please post it in this thread.

Has it been merged into PyPA specifications — Python Packaging User Guide somewhere? Specifically looking at Declaring project metadata — Python Packaging User Guide I don’t see any reference to PEP 631. So I would argue that until the PEP is integrated into the packaging spec(s) it isn’t finished.

PEP 631 (and PEP 633) were the two options for how to specify dependencies in PEP 621. When PEP 631 was accepted, it’s proposed approach was included into PEP 621 here. So there’s nothing more that needs doing with it, surely?

(Note: I don’t personally care about the minor detail of whether the “Status” field for PEP 631 is “Accepted” or “Final”. It seems fairly irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things, so I’m only clarifying here for the sake of completeness.)

1 Like

True! I forgot we had that side debate on that aspect of PEP 621.

From a PEP editor perspective, given PEP 631 was Accepted and then included into PEP 621, it might be more appropriate to assign it the Superceded status with Superceded-By: 631. The note should also be updated slightly. I can open a PR with the change.

In any case, particularly since the PEPs are not the canonical package specifications, in the future it might be a good idea to just raise an issue or PR directly on the PEPs repo for these sorts of editorial details, whereas more substantive matters are a better fit here.

1 Like

I opened python/peps#2506 to take care of this.

1 Like