Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> > >> > >> Nathaniel's comment about how this might

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On 29 October 2015 at 01:16, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Well I wouldn't say "no one". You weren't there at the NumPy BoF > at SciPy this year, where a substantial portion of the room started > calling for exactly this, and I felt pretty alone up front trying to > squash it

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2015 00:31, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on > conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about having a fissure > in 1D along the Python 2/3 line, and I'm constantly worried that the >

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On 29 Oct 2015 00:31, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about having a

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> Nathaniel's comment about how this might actually give pip a leg up on >> conda also sounds nice to me as I have enough worry about

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On October 26, 2015 at 3:36:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) > wrote: > >> > TL;DR > >> - > >> > >> If we: > >> > >> - implement a

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On 27 October 2015 at 21:47, David Cournapeau wrote: > Another simple solution for this particular case is to add conflict rules > between packages that provide the same requirement (that's what php's > composer do IIRC). > > The case of safety against malicious forks is

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 at 02:17 Robert Collins wrote: > On 27 October 2015 at 21:47, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > Another simple solution for this particular case is to add conflict rules > > between packages that provide the same requirement (that's

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On October 26, 2015 at 3:36:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) wrote: > > TL;DR > - > > If we: > > - implement a real resolver, and > - add a notion of a per-project namespace of distribution names, > that > are collected under the same PyPI registration and come from > the same >

[Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

Hi all, I had a wacky idea and I can't tell if it's brilliant, or ridiculous, or both. Which makes sense given that I had a temperature of 39.3 when I thought of it, but even after getting better and turning it over in my mind for a while I still can't tell, so, I figured I'd put it out there and

Re: [Distutils] wacky idea about reifying extras

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > On October 26, 2015 at 3:36:47 AM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) wrote: >> > TL;DR >> - >> >> If we: >> >> - implement a real resolver, and >> - add a notion of a per-project namespace of distribution names, >> that