On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Phillip J. Eby
I'm -1 on all of the above. I think we need a standard for tools interop (ala WSGI), not implementation tweaks for the existing tools. I also think that a concrete metadata format proposal is premature at this time; we've barely begun to gather -- let alone specify -- our requirements for that metadata. (Essentially, only version dependencies have been discussed, AFAICT.)
What are the other important points we need to discuss at this point in your opinion ?
There have been many people agreeing that the distutils are thoroughly broken and a new approach is needed; these proposals sound like minor tweaks to the existing infrastructure, rather than a way to get rid of it. So to me, the above doesn't seem like a synthesis of the threads that I've been reading.
4/ let's change PyPI to make it work with the new metadata and to enforce a few things
Enforcements: - a binary distribution cannot be uploaded if a source distrbution has not been previously provided for the version
Note that this doesn't allow closed-source packages to be uploaded; thus it would need to be a warning, rather than a requirement.
Right. do you agree it is something useful to do ?
New features: - we should be able to download the metadata of a package without downloading the package - PyPI should display the install and test dependencies in the UI
It could only do this for specific binaries, since dependencies can be dynamic.
What dynamic means here ? the python module to static file process or more ? can you provide an example ? Regards Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/