On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm -1 on all of the above. I think we need a standard for tools interop > (ala WSGI), not implementation tweaks for the existing tools. I also think > that a concrete metadata format proposal is premature at this time; we've > barely begun to gather -- let alone specify -- our requirements for that > metadata. (Essentially, only version dependencies have been discussed, > AFAICT.)
What are the other important points we need to discuss at this point in your opinion ? > > There have been many people agreeing that the distutils are thoroughly > broken and a new approach is needed; these proposals sound like minor > tweaks to the existing infrastructure, rather than a way to get rid of it. > So to me, the above doesn't seem like a synthesis of the threads that I've > been reading. > > >> 4/ let's change PyPI to make it work with the new metadata and to >> enforce a few things >> >> Enforcements: >> - a binary distribution cannot be uploaded if a source distrbution >> has not been previously provided for the version > > Note that this doesn't allow closed-source packages to be uploaded; thus it > would need to be a warning, rather than a requirement. > Right. do you agree it is something useful to do ? > >> New features: >> - we should be able to download the metadata of a package without >> downloading the package >> - PyPI should display the install and test dependencies in the UI > > It could only do this for specific binaries, since dependencies can be > dynamic. > > What dynamic means here ? the python module to static file process or more ? can you provide an example ? Regards Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
