On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > Would it be acceptable then for a distro to disable __preview__ or empty it > out? > > The thinking goes like this: if you would normally use an __preview__ module > because you can't get approval to download some random package from PyPI, well > then your distro probably could or should provide it, so get it from them. In > fact, if the number of __preview__ modules is kept low, *and* PyPI equivalents > were a requirement, then a distro vendor could just ensure those PyPI versions > are available as distro packages outside of the __preview__ stdlib namespace > (i.e. in their normal third-party namespace). Then folks developing on that > platform could just use the distro package and ignore __preview__. > > If that's acceptable, then maybe it should be explicitly so in the PEP.
I think that's an excellent idea - in that case, the distro vendor is taking over the due diligence responsibilities, which are the main point of __preview__. Similarly, sumo distributions like ActiveState or Python(x, y) could choose to add the PyPI version. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
