On 2 February 2015 at 03:04, Marcus Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree that from an implementation perspective, this could just be a >> new recommended URL in the project URLs metadata (e.g. "Reference >> Container Images"). If folks don't think the idea sounds horrible, >> I'll make that update to the PEP 459 draft. > > > wouldn't this just be a use case for a custom "Metadata Extension", and not > something new to put into PEP459? > I'm just imagining you won't cover everything that might be needed for > automation down the road, and it will end up being an unused field in a few > years.
Yeah, that actually occurred to me this morning - nothing to change on the metadata front for now, experiment with metadata extensions once we get 426 out the door (I think the Warehouse migration and the PEP 458 package signing proposal are higher priority near term, with finalising 426 next on the todo list after that). As a possible interim approach to improving the situation, what do you think of my writing up a "Binary distribution for Linux" advanced topic? That could cover not only containers, but also the technique of "bundle a /opt virtualenv in a platform binary package" as well as actually creating native system packages (with varying degrees of distro policy compliance). Scientific Python users & publishers could also be nudged in the direction of the conda/binstar.org ecosystem. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
