by computronus on 3/24/25, 4:00 PM with 12 comments
by lopuhin on 3/24/25, 5:49 PM
Here is a PR which reverts this: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4911
Interesting that maintainers of setuptools still only postpone the depreciation date for a year, so we can probably expect more issues like this in the future.
by andenacitelli on 3/24/25, 6:41 PM
by andenacitelli on 3/24/25, 8:20 PM
Took them seemingly forever to do. The reversion, sure, that might take a bit to proof, but the yank should have been done way sooner
by brtkwr on 3/24/25, 5:26 PM
by computronus on 3/24/25, 4:02 PM
by jarboot on 3/24/25, 7:43 PM
In the rationale for this that I can find [1], a maintainer says the following:
> I'm inclined to say we should do it, even though it will cause some disruption.
They also say an alternative is to "accept the status quo", which is exactily what they should be doing. I can't find maintainers giving a compelling reason not to support this status quo of `long-description` as an alias to `long_description` besides "simplifying code." Code simplification should never take precedence over massive breakage of compatibility.
[1] https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/4870#pullrequestrevi...