I think we should start supporting that, yes. On 19 November 2015 at 09:14, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> wrote:
Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any tool decides can be an artifact reference?
We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does.
so, to be clear, what syntax for the URI portion does it define or require? (beyond it just being a valid URI)
it sounds like you're saying nothing? i.e. although PEP440 says things like it "may" be a sdist or a wheel target or a "source_url", its wide open to whatever a tool may decide is a unique artifact reference?
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Only half way thinking about this right this moment, but I think so yes. It’s largely designed for private use cases which is why it’s not allowed on PyPI. It’s essentially a replacement for dependency_links.
practically speaking, isn't it also a future replacement for "<url>#egg=name" syntax in pip vcs urls?... i.e. using "name@<url>" instead?
-- Robert Collins <rbtcollins@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud