On 5 October 2014 03:21, Donald Stufft
On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Nick Coghlan
wrote: So while PEP 470 would allow clients to *consider* dropping link spidering support (and any new clients would be free to never add it), it likely doesn't make sense for the PEP to commit any clients (including pip) to a particular time frame for dropping the feature. That would narrow the scope to just server side PyPI changes (with client updates to report the availability of external repositories being a quality of implementation issue rather than a hard requirement). Yea, I don’t think I included what the installers do in this PEP other than the parts specific to this PEP, so:
1. Implement multiple repository support. 2. Implement some mechanism for removing/disabling the default repository 3. Implement the discovery mechanism. 4. Deprecate / Remove PEP 438
I purposely don't give exact details how it should be done, as I think that each installer should decide how best to integrate that within their own UX.
I think it's worth spelling out that list of updated client expectations clearly in the PEP, with step 4 explicitly flagged as optional. If any given client wants to continue supporting PEP 438 for use with private indexes, I think that's fine. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia