Is the recommendation to use metadata python.integrator for local versions outdated?

[schaetzc]

The last section in https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/version-specifiers/#local-version-identifiers says

Local version identifiers
[...]
Source distributions using a local version identifier SHOULD provide the python.integrator extension metadata (as defined in PEP 459).

However, I couldn't find any (still relevant) instructions for python.integrator. PEP 459 says

This PEP depends on PEP 426, which has itself been withdrawn. See the PEP Withdrawal section in that PEP for details.
In the meantime, metadata extensions will continue to be handled as they have been for past

Does that mean, python.integrator should not be used, and the hint in version specifiers is outdated and should be removed?

---

If yes, similar references to metadata should be removed in other documents too. E.g. https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/core-metadata/ says

PEP 566 defined a way to transform metadata into a JSON-compatible dictionary, this is not yet used as a standard interchange format

while PEP 566 itself says

This PEP is a historical document. The up-to-date, canonical spec, Core metadata specifications, is maintained on the PyPA specs page.

This looks like a cycle of outdated documents that refer to each other as being the future. Or am I missing something?

[chrysle]

Does that mean, python.integrator should not be used, and the hint in version specifiers is outdated and should be removed?

Looks like that should be done, yes.

This looks like a cycle of outdated documents that refer to each other as being the future. Or am I missing something?

Normally, if a packaging PEP is considered stable and is transferred to PyPUG (this guide), it will be marked as "historical" on the Python PEPs page and maintenance is handed over to the guide editors.

[webknjaz]

cc @ncoghlan looks like that's your PEP mentioned ^