[Catalog-sig] Moving forward

Amos Latteier amos@digicool.com
Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:41:42 -0700

Andrew Kuchling wrote:
> Now that Python 2.1 is out, I think it's time to begin moving the
> Catalog-SIG forward again.
> To recap where we stand: PEP 241 made it into Python 2.1.  PEP 243
> didn't, but I don't know if there are any further changes that need to
> go into it.

I have a couple questions about pep 243

  1. How can the server identify the uploader? You can include an
optional signature file, however if you don't include this file there is
no way to associate an identity with the uploaded file. In my prototype
even if you don't include a signature file the server requires an
account and keeps track of who uploaded what. Perhaps there could be
optional support for HTTP authentication during the upload. This would
allow the distutils to supply optional authentication credentials.

  2. Platform specification. Should the server validate the platform
specification? I suspect that platform specification in general is a rat
hole. For example a binary package may require all sorts of things that
are hard to represent as an os, os version, and Python version. I still
haven't implemented platform specification in my prototype.

  3. PKG-INFO conflicts. The PEP allows both extraction of the PKG-INFO
file from the package and an optional upload of the PKG-INFO file. What
happens if these files are not the same. I propose that the PKG-INFO
file in the package be used if there is a conflict.

> I'm planning to wrap up and release version 1.0.2 of the Distutils,
> and then try to chew through the feature requests and other patches
> that have accumulated on SourceForge, so they can be in the next
> Distutils release.  (1.1, 1.0.3, whatever.)
> So, what now?  The only things I can really think of are:
> * Look at PEP 243 and finish off the specification.  (Or is it done?)

I still have a couple questions on the PEP (see above). Greg stein had
lots of ideas about how we could use standard HTTP facilities. Should we
revisit these ideas? In general, I don't think it's necessary for the
PEP to be perfect, just good enough to work with our existing
prototypes. Then we can evolve it and bump the protocol version number.
> * The prototypes need to begin evolving toward being
>   production-usable.

What are the criteria for production usability? I'd say we need to have
a basic level of usability and stability. I'd love to hear specific
feedback about what my prototype needs in order to move it toward
> What else should we be doing?

That sounds good.


Amos Latteier         mailto:amos@digicool.com
Digital Creations     http://www.digicool.com