No. See above comment. If exposing this information has no value then
don't do it. If it does have value, then we are blessing it - and
therefore blessing it *over* other formats.
No: not *over*. Only over formats that don't get exposed. However,
the PEP 345 data are *already* exposed, via
So if the use case is to provide dependency information exposing
egg_info is not the right way to do it - and tools that use it will be
using potentially (and frequently) inaccurate information. I stand by
the point that once we start providing this information tools will start
using it, and they
So, I don't understand what is the benefit here, since a serious
installer will re-run egg_info every time.
I think the main applications that people are after are not builds.
They want the dependency information without downloading the packages,
and dependency information for packages they
At 05:19 PM 9/18/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In the specific case of tl.eggdeps, the dependency information is only
used to create printable graphs. If this turns out to be slightly
incorrect, people would notice if they try to use the packages in
question.
By the way, just providing
So you are fine with publishing slightly incorrect metadata at PyPI
? I am not.
I really have no intuition for in how many cases the data will be
incorrect. However, if users find that the data is incorrect for
specific package, they ought to complain to the maintainer.
I don't understand
Am 18.09.10 17:49, schrieb P.J. Eby:
At 05:19 PM 9/18/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In the specific case of tl.eggdeps, the dependency information is only
used to create printable graphs. If this turns out to be slightly
incorrect, people would notice if they try to use the packages in
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 11:03, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That's really sad. So people will have to wait a few years to efficiently
implement tools that they could implement today.
Why a few years?
That's the time it will
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 11:48, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 11:03, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That's really sad. So people will have
On 18/09/2010 08:52, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I am in full agreement with Tarek here. At ActiveState, we maintain
our own index that differs from PyPI in two ways (among others):
I think you are saying something very different from what Tarek
says. IIUC, you are saying that egg-info is
On 18/09/2010 11:03, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
With the distutils2 work very close to landing in the standard library,
providing infrastructure that will cause tools to *depend* on the old
formats is a very bad idea.
I think you are misunderstanding. The infrastructure will *not* depend
on the
On 18/09/2010 11:48, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 11:03, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That's really sad. So people will have to wait a few years to efficiently
implement tools that they could implement
On 18/09/2010 12:25, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding. The infrastructure will *not* depend
on the old formats. Instead, packaging that have that information will
provide it, packages that don't will not. The infrastructure is
entirely
agnostic on whether the data is
Ok, I'm sorry - PEP 345 information is available via the PyPI API. (So
exposing egg_info would not be promoting it *over* distutils2 but it
would still be promoting and blessing it).
Tarek's main point still stands though. The dependency information in
the egg_info is tied to the platform
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 12:25, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding. The infrastructure will *not* depend
on the old formats. Instead, packaging that have that information will
provide it, packages that
On 18/09/2010 18:27, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 18/09/2010 12:25, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding. The infrastructure will *not* depend
on the old formats. Instead, packaging that have that
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So you are fine with publishing slightly incorrect metadata at PyPI
? I am not.
I really have no intuition for in how many cases the data will be
incorrect. However, if users find that the data is incorrect for
specific package, they ought to complain to the
Am 18.09.2010 15:27, schrieb Steve Holden:
On 9/18/2010 9:21 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
IT WILL BE NOT IN PREFERENCE TO DISTUTILS2.
No need to shout.
I really felt that this otherwise wouldn't be heard - I tried
to say it a number of times before, and it was ignored.
Regards,
Martin
17 matches
Mail list logo
