Re: [Python-Dev] modules people want installed automatically (was: Re: re performance)

Proper support in the loader API is possible and was on its way to being coded up until GitHub took precedence (realize this project has put all other major python projects of mine on hold for nearly 2 years hence the delay). And pkg_resources I'm sure could be updated to use any new API when

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On 2017-01-30 22:19, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hm. Is this documented anywhere ? We have customers needing > "private/custom" certificates, and I am unsure where to look for. For full control it is advised to use a custom SSLContext that only loads the internal CA.

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: > On 2017-01-30 22:00, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Cory Benfield > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On 2017-01-30 22:00, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Cory Benfield > wrote: > > > > > On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David Cournapeau > wrote: > > > > Are

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On 2017-01-30 21:50, Cory Benfield wrote: > > >> On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David Cournapeau wrote: >> >> Are there any official recommendations for downstream packagers beyond PEP >> 476 ? Is it "acceptable" for downstream packagers to patch python's default >> cert

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > > > On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > Are there any official recommendations for downstream packagers beyond > PEP 476 ? Is it "acceptable" for downstream packagers to patch

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Cory Benfield wrote: > > > > On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > Are there any official recommendations for downstream packagers beyond > PEP 476 ? Is it "acceptable" for downstream packagers to patch

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

> On 30 Jan 2017, at 13:53, David Cournapeau wrote: > > Are there any official recommendations for downstream packagers beyond PEP > 476 ? Is it "acceptable" for downstream packagers to patch python's default > cert locations ? There *are* no default cert locations on

Re: [Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

On 2017-01-30 14:53, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hi, > > I am managing the team responsible for providing python packaging at > Enthought, and I would like to make sure we are providing a good (and > secure) out of the box experience for SSL. > > My understanding is that PEP 476 is the latest PEP

Re: [Python-Dev] re performance

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 6:26 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > Actually, I think pkg_resources would make an excellent candidate. The > setuptools crew is working on a branch that would allow for setuptools and > pkg_resources to be split, which would be great for other reasons.

Re: [Python-Dev] modules people want installed automatically (was: Re: re performance)

On Jan 30, 2017, at 06:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >What functionality are you after here from pkg_resources? If it's the >reading of data files then you will get that in the stdlib through >importlib as soon as I'm not working on getting our workflow to work >through GitHub's web UI (which

[Python-Dev] modules people want installed automatically (was: Re: re performance)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 at 06:27 Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > >I think there are 3 main candidates that could fit that bill: > > > >- requests > >- setuptools > >- regex > > Actually, I think pkg_resources would make an excellent

Re: [Python-Dev] Generator objects and list comprehensions?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 at 16:39 Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi > wrote: > > > > Concerning list/set/dict comprehensions, I am much more in favor of making > comprehensions simply equivalent to for-loops (more or

Re: [Python-Dev] re performance

On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >I think there are 3 main candidates that could fit that bill: > >- requests >- setuptools >- regex Actually, I think pkg_resources would make an excellent candidate. The setuptools crew is working on a branch that would allow for setuptools and

[Python-Dev] SSL certificates recommendations for downstream python packagers

Hi, I am managing the team responsible for providing python packaging at Enthought, and I would like to make sure we are providing a good (and secure) out of the box experience for SSL. My understanding is that PEP 476 is the latest PEP that concerns this issue, and that PEP recommends using the

Re: [Python-Dev] re performance

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:30:38 + > Steve Holden wrote: >> Why not declare re deprecated and remove it in Python 4? > > Why deprecate and remove a library that's perfectly usable and >

Re: [Python-Dev] re performance

On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:30:38 + Steve Holden wrote: > Why not declare re deprecated and remove it in Python 4? Why deprecate and remove a library that's perfectly usable and satisfactory for the vast majority of regular expression usage? It's not like regex presents a

Re: [Python-Dev] re performance

On 28 January 2017 at 18:07, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 28, 2017, at 03:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>I still think it could be a good candidate for a first "bundled" >>module, where we don't migrate it fully into the CPython development >>process, but *do* officially bless