On 5 October 2014 03:21, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: >> So while PEP 470 would allow clients to *consider* dropping link >> spidering support (and any new clients would be free to never add it), >> it likely doesn't make sense for the PEP to commit any clients >> (including pip) to a particular time frame for dropping the feature. >> That would narrow the scope to just server side PyPI changes (with >> client updates to report the availability of external repositories >> being a quality of implementation issue rather than a hard >> requirement). > > Yea, I don’t think I included what the installers do in this PEP other than > the parts specific to this PEP, so: > > 1. Implement multiple repository support. > 2. Implement some mechanism for removing/disabling the default repository > 3. Implement the discovery mechanism. > 4. Deprecate / Remove PEP 438 > > I purposely don't give exact details how it should be done, as I think that > each installer should decide how best to integrate that within their own > UX.
I think it's worth spelling out that list of updated client expectations clearly in the PEP, with step 4 explicitly flagged as optional. If any given client wants to continue supporting PEP 438 for use with private indexes, I think that's fine. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
