> On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:03 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
This is more or less exactly what I intend (and what I think it does) the PEP to say. --- 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