On 8 October 2014 11:33, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: >> The use of --extra-index-url in >> PEP 470 is to show how someone would add one of the extra repositories for a >> project that is indexed on PyPI, which is again roughly as safe as installing >> from PyPI at all. > > Then we are reading the sections i cite above very differently -- IMO > you and the PEP generally push for multi-index ops without explaining > the risks. > > Maybe someone else can chime in.
Chiming in because you asked for other opinions, although I've not yet read to the end of the thread... I read this section, and indeed the whole of the PEP, as basically saying: 1. We have a problem because PEP 438 didn't turn out so well in practice. 2. We have an existing mechanism (multi-index support). 3. The existing mechanism can be used as follows to better solve the problem PEP 438 tried to solve. I don't see any "encouragement" to use multi-index support, other than in the specific case PEP 438 was aimed at. Obviously PEP 470 raises the profile of multi-index support, which might cause people to use it ill-advisedly in inappropriate situations, but that's not the fault of PEP 470, and I don't want to see PEP 470 filled with warnings about how *other* uses of multi-index support might be inappropriate, because that will distract from the core message that is "we can fix the external hosting issue without needing clients to add a new mechanism". Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
