> On Oct 4, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5 October 2014 03:21, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Updated my local copy to have this, it’ll be included in my next draft. --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
