(cc'ing here from python-ideas) Here are some notes re: changing metadata:
https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/issues/31 (closed; but still very relevant) https://www.google.com/search?q=pep426jsonld Towards JSONLD is the best approach, I think. So, that means it would be best to, if you need to add additional metadata (?) and must key things, also copy the key into an object: {"thing1": {"@id": "thing1", "url": "..."}} Instead of just: {"thing1": {"url": "..."}} https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/issues/31#issuecomment-233195564 On Sunday, August 13, 2017, Cooper Ry Lees <li...@cooperlees.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > First time emailer, so please be kind. Also, if this is not the right > mailing list for PyPA talk, I apologize. Please point me in the right > direction if so (Brett Canon pointed me here). The main reason I have > emailed here is I believe it may be PEP time to standardize the JSON > metadata that PyPI makes available, like what was done for the `'simple > API` described in PEP503. > > I've been doing a bit of work on `bandersnatch` (I didn't name it), which > is a PEP 381 mirroring package and wanted to enhance it to also mirror the > handy JSON metadata PyPI generates and makes available @ > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PKG_NAME/json. > > I've done a PR on bandersnatch as a POC that mirrors both the PyPI > directory structure (URL/pypi/PKG_NAME/json) and created a standardizable > URL/json/PKG_NAME that the former symlinks to (to be served by NGINX / some > other proxy). I'm also contemplating naming the directory 'metadata' rather > than JSON so if some new hotness / we want to change the format down the > line we're not stuck with json as the dirname. This PR can be found here: > https://bitbucket.org/pypa/bandersnatch/pull-requests/ > 33/save-json-metadata-to-mirror > > My main use case is to write a very simple async 'verifier' tool that will > crawl all the JSON files and then ensure the packages directory on each of > my internal mirrors (I have a mirror per region / datacenter) have all the > files they should. I sync centrally (to save resource on the PyPI > infrastructure) and then rsync out all the diffs to each region / > datacenter, and under some failure scenarios I could miss a file or many. > So I feel using JSON pulled down from the authoritative source will allow > an async job to verify the MD5 of all the package files on each mirror. > > What are peoples thoughts here? Is it worth a PEP similar to PEP503 going > forward? Can people enhance / share some thoughts on this idea. > > Thanks, > Cooper Ry Lees > m...@cooperlees.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','m...@copperlees.com');> > https://cooperlees.com/ > Here are some notes on making this more efficient: "Add API endpoint to get latest version of all projects" https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/issues/347 ... http://markmail.org/search/?q=list:org.python.distutils-sig + { metadata , pep426jsonld }
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
