I can't seem to convince the "upload" command to send egg distributions to PyPI. I'm using the CVS head version of "upload", and modified bdist_egg to add the necessary information to distribution.dist_files, but attempting to upload gives this response (using --show-response): Submitting dist\setuptools-0.5a4-py2.3.egg to http://www.python.org/pypi Upload failed (500): There's been a problem with your request --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erro r... There's been a problem with your request exceptions.ValueError: invalid distribution file ------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Any suggestions?
I just tried doing the upload via the web interface, and got the same error. It appears that PyPI doesn't support uploading eggs, which is surprising because I could've sworn that the sprinters at PyCon said they were putting eggs on the list of allowed filetypes. But I just found the appropriate PyPI source code, and '.egg' isn't on the list of allowed file extensions, so I'll go ahead and file an RFE for this. At 11:36 PM 6/26/2005 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I can't seem to convince the "upload" command to send egg distributions to PyPI. I'm using the CVS head version of "upload", and modified bdist_egg to add the necessary information to distribution.dist_files, but attempting to upload gives this response (using --show-response):
Submitting dist\setuptools-0.5a4-py2.3.egg to http://www.python.org/pypi Upload failed (500): There's been a problem with your request --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erro r...
There's been a problem with your request
exceptions.ValueError: invalid distribution file ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Any suggestions?
On Jun 27, 2005, at 12:05 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I just tried doing the upload via the web interface, and got the same error. It appears that PyPI doesn't support uploading eggs, which is surprising because I could've sworn that the sprinters at PyCon said they were putting eggs on the list of allowed filetypes. But I just found the appropriate PyPI source code, and '.egg' isn't on the list of allowed file extensions, so I'll go ahead and file an RFE for this.
On an almost related note, what should the MIME content/media type be for serving egg files via HTTP? It may be advantageous to use "application/zip" [1]. A derivative like "application/egg+zip" would allow the media type to be associated with easy_install or other handlers while preserving the base media type information (although I'm not completely clear on whether derivatives require registration). [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/zip Ryan Tomayko rtomayko@gmail.com http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
On 6/27/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@gmail.com> wrote:
On an almost related note, what should the MIME content/media type be for serving egg files via HTTP? It may be advantageous to use "application/zip" [1].
Perhaps.
A derivative like "application/egg+zip" would allow the media type to be associated with easy_install or other handlers while preserving the base media type information (although I'm not completely clear on whether derivatives require registration).
"application/egg+zip" would require registration. I've not seen the "+foo" annotation style used for anything other than "+xml" yet, but this use makes sense to me. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> Zope Corporation
On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On 6/27/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@gmail.com> wrote:
On an almost related note, what should the MIME content/media type be for serving egg files via HTTP? It may be advantageous to use "application/zip" [1].
Perhaps.
-1. Eggs should be opaque to software that doesn't necessarily know what an egg is. For a point of reference, Java's jar format is 'application/java-archive'. -bob
On Jun 27, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
On 6/27/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@gmail.com> wrote:
On an almost related note, what should the MIME content/media type be for serving egg files via HTTP? It may be advantageous to use "application/zip" [1].
Perhaps.
-1. Eggs should be opaque to software that doesn't necessarily know what an egg is.
Yea, "application/zip" would be bad as it would clash with zip handling applications, making it very unlikely that an egg handling application could be provided as the default handler. But what about "application/egg+zip"? If the "+foo" annotation is doable, it would allow egg handling applications to be registered but also allow fallback to zip handling applications when there is no egg handling application available. I don't see the downside.
For a point of reference, Java's jar format is 'application/java- archive'.
I apologize for being cynical but, given Java's history of disregarding/butchering web and internet architecture, I'd be surprised if that was put in place by anyone having experience with internet media types. Media types are like view source/HTML, it's easy to miss the huge body of spec text dedicated to their behavior. I really don't know the history of "application/java-archive" though, so take that as an uninformed, biased, and probably a little unfair jab. Ryan Tomayko rtomayko@gmail.com http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
A derivative like "application/egg+zip" would allow the media type to be associated with easy_install or other handlers while preserving the base media type information (although I'm not completely clear on whether derivatives require registration).
"application/egg+zip" would require registration. I've not seen the "+foo" annotation style used for anything other than "+xml" yet, but this use makes sense to me.
Same here. I'm still trying to dig it up but I think I remember seeing the "+foo" annotation explicitly specified in the normative application/xml media type specification. But I'm not seeing it so I could be wrong. Ryan Tomayko rtomayko@gmail.com http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
On Jun 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Ryan Tomayko wrote:
On Jun 27, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
"application/egg+zip" would require registration. I've not seen the "+foo" annotation style used for anything other than "+xml" yet, but this use makes sense to me.
Same here. I'm still trying to dig it up but I think I remember seeing the "+foo" annotation explicitly specified in the normative application/xml media type specification. But I'm not seeing it so I could be wrong.
The "+xml" suffix is the only suffixing scheme at IANA and is normatively defined in the RFC 3023 XML Media Types [1]. The section linked to below contains justification for inventing the suffixing scheme, which is almost as interesting as it is amusing. :) [1] <http://rfc.net/rfc3023.html#p32> Ryan Tomayko rtomayko@gmail.com http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
On 6/27/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@gmail.com> wrote:
The "+xml" suffix is the only suffixing scheme at IANA and is normatively defined in the RFC 3023 XML Media Types [1]. The section linked to below contains justification for inventing the suffixing scheme, which is almost as interesting as it is amusing. :)
The "XML is the first generic data format that has seemed to justify special treatment" (A.14) in certainly humorous, especially given the context of this discussion. I'm firmly in the "application/egg+zip" camp at this point. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> Zope Corporation
Fred Drake wrote:
On 6/27/05, Ryan Tomayko <rtomayko@gmail.com> wrote:
The "+xml" suffix is the only suffixing scheme at IANA and is normatively defined in the RFC 3023 XML Media Types [1]. The section linked to below contains justification for inventing the suffixing scheme, which is almost as interesting as it is amusing. :)
The "XML is the first generic data format that has seemed to justify special treatment" (A.14) in certainly humorous, especially given the context of this discussion.
I'm firmly in the "application/egg+zip" camp at this point.
But shouldn't that be application/x-egg+zip ? -- Ian Bicking / ianb@colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I just tried doing the upload via the web interface, and got the same error. It appears that PyPI doesn't support uploading eggs, which is surprising because I could've sworn that the sprinters at PyCon said they were putting eggs on the list of allowed filetypes.
I'm not sure whom specifically you are referring to - I personally don't recall saying such a thing. Regards, Martin
At 11:05 PM 6/27/2005 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
I just tried doing the upload via the web interface, and got the same error. It appears that PyPI doesn't support uploading eggs, which is surprising because I could've sworn that the sprinters at PyCon said they were putting eggs on the list of allowed filetypes.
I'm not sure whom specifically you are referring to - I personally don't recall saying such a thing.
I think it was Richard Jones who said he was including .egg on the list. I gave him some additional info about the format (e.g. that eggs include an EGG-INFO/PKG-INFO file), but he said he didn't think it was worth bothering with checking beyond the filename for .egg. (I mention this only to highlight the point that we did talk for a minute or so on the subject, not to get into the subject of the .egg format's internal layout.) Anyway, I got the impression from what was said that he was actually literally implementing the filetype check as we spoke about it, which is why I was surprised to find it's not actually in there.
participants (6)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Bob Ippolito -
Fred Drake -
Ian Bicking -
Phillip J. Eby -
Ryan Tomayko