[Catalog-sig] Re: [Distutils] RFC: PEP 243: Module Repository Upload Mechanism

Moshe Zadka moshez@zadka.site.co.il
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:42:58 +0200

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:36:46 +0100, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> wrote:

> I'd say go with PGP -- it is far more available and known than

As a data point, newer PGPs can read signatures made by GPG, and GPG
can read any signature made by PGP. However, many people do not have
PGP in their operating systems. There is the OpenPGP standard which both
newer PGPs and GPG conform to --- while Sean seems to have a problem
referring to standards instead of to implementations (<0.9 wink>), he
should learn to cope with it. It is RFC 2440, and I suggest simply
putting a refernce to the RFC in the PEP

> Can't we just specify: use HTTP POST with multipart/form-data encoding 
> and then redirect to the RFC (can't remember the number)

RFC 2388
(Someone should really patch up pep2html.py to make RFC mentions hyperlinks)
(The code can probably be stolen from pydoc.py)
"I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm        |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
   -- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)|      easier, more seductive.
For public key, finger moshez@debian.org  |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org