In addition to maintaining the default implementation of the Python packaging toolchain, the Python Packaging Authority is also responsible for maintaining the interoperability specifications used to define the interactions between those tools.
Interoperability specifications maintained by the Python Packaging Authority are tracked as Informational Python Enhancement Proposals in accordance with PEP 1.
The currently active specifications are recorded in the :ref:`PyPA Specifications <pypug:specifications>` section of the Python Packaging User Guide.
This section may also include clarifications, amendments and additional guidance for specification implementors in cases where the corresponding PEPs have yet to be updated appropriately.
Specification Update Process
PyPA interoperability specifications are separated into two categories:
For Package Distribution Metadata, the default responsible decision maker is the lead CPython representative on distutils-sig.
The current lead CPython representative on distutils-sig is Nick Coghlan.
For Package Index Interfaces, the default responsible decision maker is the lead maintainer for the Python Package Index.
The current lead PyPI maintainer is Donald Stufft.
Proposing new specifications
Proposals for new interoperability specifications should be formulated and submitted as new Informational Python Enhancement Proposals in accordance with PEP 1.
Such proposals must be accompanied by a PR against the PyPA Specifications section in the Python Packaging User Guide that adds a new subsection defining the purpose of the new specification and the role it plays in the wider Python packaging ecosystem.
Discussions-To header in packaging related PEPs should be set to
Whenever a new PEP is put forward on distutils-sig, any PyPA core reviewer that believes they are suitably experienced to make the final decision on that PEP may offer to serve as the BDFL's delegate (or "PEP czar") for that PEP. If their self-nomination is accepted by the other PyPA core reviewers, the lead PyPI maintainer and the lead CPython representative on distutils-sig, then they will have the authority to approve (or reject) that PEP.
Otherwise, the default BDFL-Delegate depends on the area the PEP affects:
- Package Distribution Metadata: lead CPython representative on distutils-sig
- Package Index Interfaces: lead PyPI maintainer
Handling fixes and other minor updates
The preferred approach to handling fixes and other minor updates adopted for all recent interoperability specifications is to submit an issue and/or pull request against the official PEPs repo.
All enhancements proposed this way must be discussed on distutils-sig prior to amending the PEP, and any changes made after PEP acceptance must be explicitly documented in a "Changes" section in the PEP itself. For example, see:
PyPA core reviewers that are also PEP editors are responsible for deciding which of these changes can just be accepted (e.g. fixing a typo), which need to be reviewed by the relevant responsible decision maker before being accepted, and which need to be escalated to the full Python Enhancement Proposal process.
Current exceptions to this policy exist for:
- the core metadata specification in PEP 345
- the installed distributions metadata layout specification in PEP 376
For historical reasons, these PEPs are currently maintained in a hybrid state where additional fields and the selective superceding of various sections is documented directly in the specification section of the Python Packaging User Guide rather than being incorporated into the original PEP.
Handling major updates
For package distribution metadata, proposals that require backwards incompatible changes to existing interoperability specifications for package distribution metadata (and hence a new major version of the specification rather than an in-place update) are currently not permitted.
This policy has been introduced based on historical experience that such incompatibilities lead to the community sticking with older versions of the metadata format indefinitely rather than upgrading to the revised format.
For package index interfaces, major updates are handled as either Process or Standards Track PEPs targeting the Python Package Index as the reference implementation. All such PEPs that introduce backwards incompatible changes are required to define a suitable transition plan for affected software publishers and tool developers.