On 27 June 2013 13:12, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote: >> (a) Repeatability (not possible with a generic "latest version" URL). > > ISTM that forcing repeatability in the spec implies the inability to > do development with requirements that are also in development, unless > there is also an out-of-band channel for communicating the URL.
Yeah, I think you might be right here. Specific tools that want to ensure repeatability are free to impose restrictions like that (just as they're free to rule out the use of direct references entirely), but we don't want to constraint them too much at the specification level or they lose their effectiveness as an escape clause. The description already says "The exact URLs and targets supported will be tool dependent." I think it's OK for distlib to require that by the time any associated info is handed over as a requirements specification, it has been converted to a specific version number. It isn't distlib's problem whether that was extracted from the URL directly, or by downloading it and looking at (or possibly even generating) the metadata. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
