On 4 Dec 2013 05:54, "Marcus Smith" <qwc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> If conda doesn't offer such an internal consistency guarantee for >> published package sets, then I agree with the criticism that it's just >> an alternative to running a private PyPI index server hosting wheel >> files pre-built with particular options, and thus it becomes >> substantially less interesting to me :( > > > well, except that the anaconda index covers non-python projects like "qt", which a private wheel index wouldn't cover (at least with the normal intended use of wheels)
Ah, true - there's still the non-trivial matter of getting hold of the external dependencies *themselves*. Anyway, this thread has at least satisfied me that we don't need to rush anything at this point - we can see how the conda folks go handling the interoperability issues, come up with an overview of the situation for creating and publishing binary extensions, keep working on getting the Python 3.4 + pip 1.5 combination out the door, and then decide later exactly how we think conda fits into the overall picture, as well as what influence the problems it solves for the scientific stack should have on the metadata 2.0 design. Cheers, Nick. >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
