On 25 Nov 2015 05:42, "Toshio Kuratomi" <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> Yeah, I think you are correct in your understanding of what actual
> changes to the python distrribution are being proposed for
> redistributors in the PEP.  Reading through the PEP again, I'm not
> sure if I'm correct in thinking that this only applies to
> backporting... it may be that the environment section of the PEP
> applies to any python-2 while the config file section only applies to
> backporting.  Nick, could you clarify?

Yep, the environment variable section is the part MAL persuaded me was a good idea during the original discussion of this PEP, based on the interests of eGenix's customers. It's a cross-platform suggestion for distributors wanting to provide a smoother upgrade path, applicable to both backports and rebasing on 2.7.9+. (I originally didn't like it, but became amenable once it was pointed out that anyone with the ability to set process environment variables can already alter OpenSSL's settings to use a different CA cert file or directory)

The config file recommendation is specific to Linux distro backports, with the aim of saying "IF you backport PEP 476 to an older Python 2.7 point release, THEN you should do it like this for cross-distro consistency". As the current discussion shows, I'm *personally* an advocate for backporting, but I don't think the PEP itself should reflect that - the suggestions to adjust the tone are good ones, so I'll update the text accordingly.