That's not the discussion that was toxic. But the one that was -- doesn't exist anymore since the forum owners deleted it.
The part where the forum owners delete whatever they disagree with is the toxic part. On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 2:57 PM Oscar Benjamin via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 13:04, Left Right via Python-list > <python-list@python.org> wrote: > > > > Wow. That place turned out to be the toxic pit I didn't expect. > > > > It's a shame that a public discussion of public goods was entrusted to > > a bunch of gatekeepers with no sense of responsibility for the thing > > they keep the keys to. > > Here is the discussion referred to: > https://discuss.python.org/t/what-is-install-paths-to-in-wheel-file/42005 > > I don't see anything "toxic" in that discussion. You asked questions > and people took the time to give clear answers. > > The basic answer to your question is that PEP 491 was never completed > and so there is no accepted specification of the Install-Paths-To > feature that it had been intended to introduce. The PEP text itself is > reasonably clear about this and also links to the up to date > specifications: > https://peps.python.org/pep-0491/#pep-deferral > > Instead for understanding the wheel format the appropriate document is: > https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary-distribution-format/ > > That document does not mention Install-Paths-To because it documents > the standards as defined and accepted via the PEP process but PEP 491 > was never accepted. > > -- > Oscar > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
