[Catalog-sig] start on static generation, and caching - apache config.
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Jul 11 00:18:00 CEST 2007
At 11:29 PM 7/10/2007 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Hmm. I'm somewhat skeptical about setuptools (or any other packaging
>infrastructure, say, Debian) establishing rules on what makes a
>difference in package names.
I can certainly understand that. However, *having* SOME definition
that's more human-friendly (and cross-platform filename friendly!)
than "the bytes match exactly", would be very useful to have.
If PyPI had already had one (and I asked about this when I was first
trying to establish one) I'd have used that, or negotiated a
compromise if it didn't meet the filename-related requirements.
However, none of the times that I asked about this issue on either
the catalog-sig nor the distutils-sig did anyone propose any
alternative canonicalization, nor bring up any objection besides the
general sort of reservation that you're expressing here - i.e., not
sure it's a good idea, but not expressing any particular reason it's
a bad idea.
Note that Windows (and Mac OS under certain circumstances) have
filename case insensitivity, and have different restrictions about
what can or can't be in a filename than Unix. Spaces and other
punctuation characters can cause problems for shells, even if they're
theoretically acceptable as filenames.
If you'd like to propose a *different* canonicalization, however, I'm
certainly willing to consider implementing it in setuptools, if it
can be done. However, as I said, nobody has proposed anything else,
but it would be nice to resolve the issue *before* name collisions happen.
If anything, I think that PyPI canonicalization may wish to be *more*
restrictive than setuptools' is. There isn't a whole lot of user
benefit to having, say, "Mike's Nifty module" and "Mikes Nifty
Module" being considered distinct packages, even though setuptools
actually allows that distinction to be made.
IOW, setuptools' focus is more on distribution filename safety,
rather than on sensible naming distinctions for end users. The
former is less restrictive than the latter, I believe.
More information about the Catalog-SIG
mailing list