On 28 Aug 2015 07:31, "Robert Collins" <robertc@robertcollins.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Aug 2015 9:00 am, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > All Linux distros I know and use have repositories distributed all
> > over the planet, and many also provide official and less official
> > ones, for the users to choose from, so there is more than enough evidence
> > that a federated system for software distribution works better than a
> > centralized one.
>
> None of them provide cross repository discovery except Conary ttbomk. And its is inherited so a different ux.
>
> So that's a difference.

Right, the distro model is essentially the one Donald is proposing - centrally controlled default repos, ability to enable additional repos on client systems. Geographically distributed mirrors are different, as those are just redistributing signed content from the main repos.

Hosting in multiple regions and/or avoiding selected regions would definitely be a nice service to offer, and it would be good to have a straightforward way to deploy and run an external repo (e.g. a devpi Docker image), but the proposed core model is itself a tried and tested one. Reducing back to that, and restarting the exploration of multi-index support from there with a clear statement of objectives would be a good way to go.

If we need to manually whitelist some external repos for transition management purposes, then that's likely a better option than settling for a nominally general purpose feature we'd prefer people didn't actually use.

Regards,
Nick.

>
> Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>