Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
> Understood - that's why I suggested that distlib reach a point where
> it's stable as an external package and supported on (some) older
> versions. I'm hoping for an experience more like unittest2 than
> packaging/distutils2.
Currently, distlib runs on Python 2.6,
Chris Jerdonek gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe this is already stated somewhere, but is there a plan for when
> distlib will be brought into the repository? Is there a reason not to
> do it now? It seems it would have more visibility that way (e.g.
> people could see it as part of the development ve
M.-A. Lemburg egenix.com> writes:
> The suggestion to have the metadata available on PyPI doesn't
> have anything to do with security.
>
> It's about being able to determine compatibility and select the
> right distribution file for download. The metadata also helps in
> creating dependency grap
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:30 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> The wording in the PEP alienates the egg format by defining
> an incompatible new standard for the location of the metadata
> file:
This isn't a problem, because there's not really a use case at the
moment for eggs to include a PEP 426-forma
On 20.02.2013 00:16, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> On 19.02.2013 23:01, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>
On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A.
On 20.02.2013 03:37, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake wrote:
>> I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added to
>> the standard library, to boot. Packaging hasn't done well there.
>
> distlib may be the exception, though. Packaging tools are somewha
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
>
> I meant that bringing distlib into http://hg.python.org/cpython/ would
> give it more visibility to core devs and others that already keep an
> eye on python-checkins (the mailing list). And I think seeing the
> Sphinx-processe
On 20 February 2013 04:07, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/19/2013 09:37 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake wrote:
>>> I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added
>>> to the standard library, to boot
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Daniel Holth (mailto:dho...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > Sorry, Chris must have meant http://hg.python.org/distlib/ . I was
> > struggling to imagine a world where that is more visible than something on
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Sorry, Chris must have meant http://hg.python.org/distlib/ . I was
> struggling to imagine a world where that is more visible than something on
> bitbucket.
I meant that bringing distlib into http://hg.python.org/cpython/ would
give it more v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2013 09:37 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake wrote:
>> I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added
>> to the standard library, to boot. Packaging hasn't done well
>> there.
>
> distlib may
On 20/02/13 11:54, Fred Drake wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Let's not add anything to the stdlib till it has real world usage. Doing
otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.
I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added to
the standar
On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake wrote:
> I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added to
> the standard library, to boot. Packaging hasn't done well there.
distlib may be the exception, though. Packaging tools are somewhat
unique because of the chicken and egg issue i
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> Let's not add anything to the stdlib till it has real world usage. Doing
> otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.
I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added to
the standard
library, to boot. Packaging hasn't
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Sorry, Chris must have meant http://hg.python.org/distlib/ . I was struggling
> to imagine a world where that is more visible than something on bitbucket.
> Half the comments have been about putting something in stdlib right away,
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 23:01, Daniel Holth wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> >
> >> On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg
> wrote:
> * PEP 426 doesn't in
On 19.02.2013 23:01, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
* PEP 426 doesn't include any mention of the egg distribution format,
even though
On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 19.02.2013 11:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'm not against modernizing the format, but gi
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> >> * PEP 426 doesn't include any mention of the egg distribution format,
> >> even though it's the most popular distribution format at t
On 19.02.2013 14:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> * PEP 426 doesn't include any mention of the egg distribution format,
>> even though it's the most popular distribution format at the moment.
>> It should at least include the location of the m
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I'm not against modernizing the format, but given that version 1.2
>> has been out for around 8 years now, without much following,
>> I think
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 19 February 2013 13:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> If a tools wants to support metadata 2.0, it has to support all
> >> the complicated stuff as well, i.e. handle the requires fields,
> >> the environment markers and version comparisons/sorti
On 19 February 2013 20:36, Donald Stufft wrote:
> 2. There is currently no code that I am aware of that implements this
> spec. I don't believe distlib does (yet - give Vinay 5 minutes and who
> knows? :-)), pkg_resources as I said implements a different format,
> and distutils2, apart from being
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 19 February 2013 13:40, Nick Coghlan (mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > If a tools wants to support metadata 2.0, it has to support all
> > > the complicated stuff as well, i.e. handle the requires fields,
> > > the environmen
On 19 February 2013 13:40, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> If a tools wants to support metadata 2.0, it has to support all
>> the complicated stuff as well, i.e. handle the requires fields,
>> the environment markers and version comparisons/sorting.
>
> Which is what distutils2 can be used for now, and wha
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:23 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 11:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> I'm not against modernizing the format, but given that version 1.2
>>> has been out for aroun
On 19.02.2013 11:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I'm not against modernizing the format, but given that version 1.2
>> has been out for around 8 years now, without much following,
>> I think we need to m
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'm not against modernizing the format, but given that version 1.2
> has been out for around 8 years now, without much following,
> I think we need to make the implementation bit a requirement
> befo
On 17.02.2013 11:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> FYI
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Nick Coghlan
> Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:10 PM
> Subject: PEP 426 is now the draft spec for distribution metadata 2.0
> To: "DistUtils mailing list\"\""
>
>
> The latest draft of PEP 426
29 matches
Mail list logo
