iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

PEP 625: Update following discussions (GH-2671)

This commit is contained in:
Paul Moore 2022-07-09 11:27:18 +01:00 committed by GitHub
parent ed9d65c1d4
commit 43782e9251
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 102 additions and 61 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

163
pep-0625.rst
View File

@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
PEP: 625
Title: File name of a Source Distribution
Title: Filename of a Source Distribution
Author: Tzu-ping Chung <uranusjr@gmail.com>,
Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com>
Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/draft-pep-file-name-of-a-source-distribution/4686
Status: Draft
Status: Deferred
Type: Standards Track
Topic: Packaging
Content-Type: text/x-rst
@ -14,14 +14,17 @@ Abstract
========
This PEP describes a standard naming scheme for a Source Distribution, also
known as an *sdist*. This scheme distinguishes an sdist from an arbitrary
archive file containing source code of Python packages, and can be used to
communicate information about the distribution to packaging tools.
known as an *sdist*. An sdist is distinct from an arbitrary archive file
containing source code of Python packages, and can be used to communicate
information about the distribution to packaging tools.
A standard sdist specified here is a gzipped tar file with a specially
formatted file stem and a ``.sdist`` suffix. This PEP does not specify the
contents of the tarball.
formatted filename and the usual ``.tar.gz`` suffix. This PEP does not specify
the contents of the tarball, as that is covered in other specifications.
**Note**: This PEP has been deferred until :pep:`643` has seen wider adoption
(in particular, until Metadata 2.2 is accepted on PyPI, and a number of common
backends have implemented it).
Motivation
==========
@ -32,24 +35,25 @@ installation. This format is often considered as an unbuilt counterpart of a
:pep:`427` wheel, and given special treatments in various parts of the
packaging ecosystem.
Compared to wheel, however, the sdist is entirely unspecified, and currently
works by convention. The widely accepted format of an sdist is defined by the
implementation of distutils and setuptools, which creates a source code
archive in a predictable format and file name scheme. Installers exploit this
predictability to assign this format certain contextual information that helps
the installation process. pip, for example, parses the file name of an sdist
from a :pep:`503` index, to obtain the distribution's project name and version
for dependency resolution purposes. But due to the lack of specification,
the installer does not have any guarantee as to the correctness of the inferred
message, and must verify it at some point by locally building the distribution
metadata.
The content of an sdist is specified in :pep:`517` and :pep:`643`, but currently
the filename of the sdist is incompletely specified, meaning that consumers
of the format must download and process the sdist to confirm the name and
version of the distribution included within.
Installers currently rely on heuristics to infer the name and/or version from
the filename, to help the installation process. pip, for example, parses the
filename of an sdist from a :pep:`503` index, to obtain the distribution's
project name and version for dependency resolution purposes. But due to the
lack of specification, the installer does not have any guarantee as to the
correctness of the inferred data, and must verify it at some point by locally
building the distribution metadata.
This build step is awkward for a certain class of operations, when the user
does not expect the build process to occur. `pypa/pip#8387`_ describes an
example. The command ``pip download --no-deps --no-binary=numpy numpy`` is
expected to only download an sdist for numpy, since we do not need to check
for dependencies, and both the name and version are available by introspecting
the downloaded file name. pip, however, cannot assume the downloaded archive
the downloaded filename. pip, however, cannot assume the downloaded archive
follows the convention, and must build and check the metadata. For a :pep:`518`
project, this means running the ``prepare_metadata_for_build_wheel`` hook
specified in :pep:`517`, which incurs significant overhead.
@ -58,78 +62,102 @@ specified in :pep:`517`, which incurs significant overhead.
Rationale
=========
By creating a special file name scheme for the sdist format, this PEP frees up
By creating a special filename scheme for the sdist format, this PEP frees up
tools from the time-consuming metadata verification step when they only need
the metadata available in the file name.
the metadata available in the filename.
This PEP also serves as the formal specification to the long-standing
file name convention used by the current sdist implementations. The file name
filename convention used by the current sdist implementations. The filename
contains the distribution name and version, to aid tools identifying a
distribution without needing to download, unarchive the file, and perform
costly metadata generation for introspection, if all the information they need
is available in the file name.
is available in the filename.
Specification
=============
The name of an sdist should be ``{distribution}-{version}.sdist``.
The name of an sdist should be ``{distribution}-{version}.tar.gz``.
* ``distribution`` is the name of the distribution as defined in :pep:`345`,
and normalised according to :pep:`503`, e.g. ``'pip'``, ``'flit-core'``.
and normalised as described in `the wheel spec`_ e.g. ``'pip'``,
``'flit_core'``.
* ``version`` is the version of the distribution as defined in :pep:`440`,
e.g. ``20.2``.
e.g. ``20.2``, and normalised according to the rules in that PEP.
Each component is escaped according to the same rules as :pep:`427`.
An sdist must be a gzipped tar archive in pax format, that is able to be
extracted by the standard library ``tarfile`` module with the open flag
``'r:gz'``.
An sdist must be a gzipped tar archive that is able to be extracted by the
standard library ``tarfile`` module with the open flag ``'r:gz'``.
Code that produces an sdist file MUST give the file a name that matches this
specification. The specification of the ``build_sdist`` hook from :pep:`517` is
extended to require this naming convention.
Code that processes sdist files MAY determine the distribution name and version
by simply parsing the filename, and is not required to verify that information
by generating or reading the metadata from the sdist contents.
Conforming sdist files can be recognised by the presence of the ``.tar.gz``
suffix and a *single* hyphen in the filename. Note that some legacy files may
also match these criteria, but this is not expected to be an issue in practice.
See the "Backwards Compatibility" section of this document for more details.
Backwards Compatibility
=======================
The new file name scheme should not incur backwards incompatibility in
existing tools. Installers are likely to have already implemented logic to
exclude extensions they do not understand, since they already need to deal
with legacy formats on PyPI such as ``.rpm`` and ``.egg``. They should be able
to correctly ignore files with extension ``.sdist``.
The new filename scheme is a subset of the current informal naming
convention for sdist files, so tools that create or publish files conforming
to this standard will be readable by older tools that only understand the
previous naming conventions.
pip, for example, skips this extension with the following debug message::
Tools that consume sdist filenames would technically not be able to determine
whether a file is using the new standard or a legacy form. However, a review
of the filenames on PyPI determined that 37% of files are obviously legacy
(because they contain multiple or no hyphens) and of the remainder, parsing
according to this PEP gives the correct answer in all but 0.004% of cases.
Skipping link: unsupported archive format: sdist: <URL to file>
While setuptools ignores it silently.
Currently, tools that consume sdists should, if they are to be fully correct,
treat the name and version parsed from the filename as provisional, and verify
them by downloading the file and generating the actual metadata (or reading it,
if the sdist conforms to :pep:`643`). Tools supporting this specification can
treat the name and version from the filename as definitive. In theory, this
could risk mistakes if a legacy filename is assumed to conform to this PEP,
but in practice the chance of this appears to be vanishingly small.
Rejected Ideas
==============
Create specification for sdist metadata
---------------------------------------
Rely on the specification for sdist metadata
--------------------------------------------
The topic of creating a trustworthy, standard sdist metadata format as a means
to distinguish sdists from arbitrary archive files has been raised and
discussed multiple times, but has yet to make significant progress due to
the complexity of potential metadata inconsistency between an sdist and a
wheel built from it.
Since this PEP was first written, :pep:`643` has been accepted, defining a
trustworthy, standard sdist metadata format. This allows distribution metadata
(and in particular name and version) to be determined statically.
This PEP does not exclude the possibility of creating a metadata specification
for sdists in the future. But by specifying only the file name of an sdist, a
tool can reliably identify an sdist, and perform useful introspection on its
identity, without going into the details required for metadata specification.
This is not considered sufficient, however, as in a number of significant
cases (for example, reading filenames from a package index) the application
only has access to the filename, and reading metadata would involve a
potentially costly download.
Use a currently common sdist naming scheme
------------------------------------------
Use a dedicated file extension
------------------------------
There is a currently established practice to name an sdist in the format of
``{distribution}-{version}.[tar.gz|zip]``.
The original version of this PEP proposed a filename of
``{distribution}-{version}.sdist``. This has the advantage of being explicit,
as well as allowing a future change to the storage format without needing a
further change of the file naming convention.
Popular source code management services use a similar scheme to name the
downloaded source archive. GitHub, for example, uses ``distribution-1.0.zip``
as the archive name containing source code of repository ``distribution`` on
branch ``1.0``. Giving this scheme a special meaning would cause confusion
since a source archive may not a valid sdist.
However, there are significant compatibility issues with a new extension. Index
servers may currently disallow unknown extensions, and if we introduced a new
one, it is not clear how to handle cases like a legacy index trying to mirror an
index that hosts new-style sdists. Is it acceptable to only partially mirror,
omitting sdists for newer versions of projects? Also, build backends that produce
the new format would be incompaible with index servers that only accept the old
format, and as there is often no way for a user to request an older version of a
backend when doing a build, this could make it impossible to build and upload
sdists.
Augment a currently common sdist naming scheme
----------------------------------------------
@ -141,15 +169,28 @@ parse ``distribution-1.0.sdist.tar.gz`` as project ``distribution`` with
version ``1.0.sdist``. This would cause the sdist to be downloaded, but fail to
install due to inconsistent metadata.
The same problem exists for all common archive suffixes. To avoid confusing
old installers, the sdist scheme must use a suffix that they do not identify
as an archive.
The main advantage of this proposal was that it is easier for tools to
recognise the new-style naming. But this is not a particularly significant
benefit, given that all sdists with a single hyphen in the name are parsed
the same way under the old and new rules.
Open Issues
===========
The contents of an sdist are required to contain a single top-level directory
named ``{name}-{version}``. Currently no normalisation rules are required
for the components of this name. Should this PEP require that the same normalisation
rules are applied here as for the filename? Note that in practice, it is likely
that tools will create the two names using the same code, so normalisation is
likely to happen naturally, even if it is not explicitly required.
References
==========
.. _`pypa/pip#8387`: https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/8387
.. _`the wheel spec`: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary-distribution-format/
Copyright