PEP 725: version 3, address all feedback and open issues

[rgommers]

This also references PEP 804 (see gh-4572), which address one of the most significant open issues about external dependency names needing to be curated and have canonical versions, rather than accepting everything that parses as a valid package URL. Hence these two PEPs now cross-reference each other. PEP 725 contains the packaging metadata, and PEP 804 the machinery and process around how that metadata is curated and can be queried, mapped, etc.

• Change is either:
  • To a Draft PEP
  • To an Accepted or Final PEP, with Steering Council approval
  • To fix an editorial issue (markup, typo, link, header, etc)
• PR title prefixed with PEP number (e.g. PEP 123: Summary of changes)

Cc'ing co-authors: @pradyunsg @jaimergp

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4573.org.readthedocs.build/

[rgommers]

I know that rendering will fail because PEP 804 (just submitted in gh-4572) isn't yet merged, hence :pep:`804` references make the build unhappy. If the editors have another preference for handling this, like note using :pep: at all and putting that back later, please let me know.

[hugovk]

One option is to wait for PEP 804 to get merged. Or if you don't want to wait that long, perhaps something like this, and revert once 804 is merged:

-and record such choices, is the topic of :pep:`804`.
+and record such choices, is the topic of `PEP 804`_.

+.. _PEP 804: https://github.com/python/peps/pull/4572

We'd have to see what the build thinks about Requires: 804.

[hugovk]

If this 725 requires 804, and 804 requires 725, do they both need to be approved as a single unit?

[rgommers]

Good question. Not necessarily, although the text would need a few tweaks if PEP 725 gets approved and PEP 804 doesn't. PEP 725 makes sense without 804 in principle though. Vice versa not so much. You can have the metadata (725) without a central registry of canonical names (804), that works just fine - it just gets more free-form.

[pradyunsg]

We should probably drop Requires here, since we have a reference in the "Motivation" section already.

[rgommers]

Okay, will do. I only added it last-minute because Jaime asked about it for PEP 804, and it seems sensible to use it consistently between the two PEPs. Usage in other PEPs of this Requires field seems fairly rare and inconsistent anyway.

[rgommers]

I removed this line now.

[rgommers]

One option is to wait for PEP 804 to get merged. Or if you don't want to wait that long, perhaps something like this, and revert once 804 is merged:

I'm fine with waiting, we plan to open the Discourse threads in parallel anyway. If we'd space them too far apart, it's likely that comments on one PEP will be posted anyway on the thread for the other PEP.