[Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

[Robert Collins]

On 19 November 2015 at 07:30, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Its included in the complete grammar, otherwise it can't be tested.
>> Note that that the PEP body refers to the IETF document for the
>> definition of URIs. e.g. exactly what you suggest.
>
>
> doesn't this imply any possible URI can theoretically be a PEP440 direct
> reference URI ?
>
> Is that true?
>
> It's unclear to me what PEP440's definition really is with words like "The
> exact URLs and targets supported will be tool dependent"
>
> Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any tool
> decides can be an artifact reference?

We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which
is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does.

What I mean here is that e.g. pip may not support a given VCS today,
but it can be added without changing the definition of a URI. We can't
demand that all tools support all VCS's reasonably, but we can demand
that all tools be able to recognise that its a direct reference and
act accordingly (e.g. try to clone it, error because direct references
aren't allowed in that context, etc).

-Rob


-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud