[Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

[Robert Collins]

I think we should start supporting that, yes.

On 19 November 2015 at 09:14, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith <qwcode at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> so, to be clear, what syntax for the URI portion does it define or
>> require?  (beyond it just being a valid URI)
>>
>> it sounds like you're saying nothing?  i.e. although PEP440 says things
>> like it "may" be a sdist or a wheel target or a "source_url", its wide open
>> to whatever a tool may decide is a unique artifact reference?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>>
>>
>>
>> Only half way thinking about this right this moment, but I think so yes.
>> It’s largely designed for private use cases which is why it’s not allowed on
>> PyPI. It’s essentially a replacement for dependency_links.
>
>
> practically speaking, isn't it also a future replacement for
> "<url>#egg=name" syntax in pip vcs urls?... i.e.  using  "name@<url>"
> instead?



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