[Python-Dev] Accept just PEP-0426

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 17:36:00 CET 2012

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Provides/Requires/Obsoletes are *not* for bundling. Publishing bundled
> packages
> > on the index is bad, and people shouldn't do it.
> [detail snipped]
> > It's likely fine if an installer doesn't use sophisticated graph
> > analysis to find the "best" way to satisfy a set of requirements - you
> can
> > just as easily use it in the simple way Daniel describes of only using
> these
> > fields to check for existing locally installed packages with the
> necessary
> > capabilities, before going out to get whatever is missing from the
> package
> > index based purely on the distribution names.
> In which case, it seems sensible to put these constraints into the PEP,
> so that both PEP implementers and users of those implementations have these
> guidelines clarified.

Yes, I thought Daniel's rewording looked pretty reasonable on that front.
However, the details of how an installer uses this information is really up
to the installer developers and what their users expect/demand. It
certainly isn't *practical* to do a full dependency analysis when PyPI
doesn't provide the same kind of precalculated metadata that a yum repo
does, but that's not something that should be spelled out in the
distribution metadata PEP, any more than it is spelled out in the RPM
format spec.


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121121/e8c1bbd4/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list