Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

maintainer= generates AUTHOR: line in PKG-INFO #1288

pganssle opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 1 comment

maintainer= generates AUTHOR: line in PKG-INFO #1288

pganssle opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 1 comment


Copy link

@pganssle pganssle commented Mar 13, 2018

This seems like a deliberate choice, but it seems that at the moment the Author: metadata is pulled preferentially from maintainer=, and Maintainer: is never actually generated.

The implementation is here, and the implementation of get_contact that prioritizes maintainer is here.

I suspect that this is an artifact of the fact that PEP 314 does not provide a Maintainer field, and that was a later addition in PEP 345?

I can make a PR for this, but there is an implementation question. The options I see right now are:

  1. Maintain the current behavior and simply add a "Maintainer" field. This is the most "backwards compatible" way to do things.
  2. Change the behavior so that author= is given preference over maintainer= when generating the AUTHOR field, but still use maintainer if no author is specified. Additionally always add the Maintainer field if maintainer= is present.
  3. Change the behavior so that only author= generates the Author field and only maintainer= generates the Maintainer: field. This is the least backwards-incompatible change.

I suspect that the choice of these probably should come down to how PyPI and Warehouse handle the metadata. If both PyPI and Warehouse are able to handle an either/or Author/Maintainer field, then I suggest that the best option is 3. Basically the fallback logic should be on the metadata consumer side, not on the metadata producer side.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
1 participant