On Aug 21, 2015 12:41 PM, "Brett Cannon" <br...@python.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 at 10:16 Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2015 5:05 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [Catching up on distutils-sig after travel]
>> >
>> > On 13 August 2015 at 16:08, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > > It seems like a reasonable effort at solving this problem, and I
guess
>> > > there are probably some people somewhere that have this problem, but
>> > > my concern is that I don't actually know any of those people. The
>> > > developers I know instead have the problem of, they want to be able
to
>> > > provide a small finite number of binaries (ideally six binaries per
>> > > Python version: {32 bit, 64 bit} * {windows, osx, linux}) that
>> > > together will Just Work on 99% of end-user systems. And that's the
>> > > problem that Enthought, Continuum, etc., have been solving for years,
>> > > and which wheels already mostly solve on windows and osx, so it seems
>> > > like a reasonable goal to aim for. But I don't see how this PEP gets
>> > > us any closer to that.
>> >
>> > The key benefit from my perspective is that tools like pyp2rpm, conda
>> > skeleton, the Debian Python packaging tools, etc, will be able to
>> > automatically generate full dependency sets automatically from
>> > upstream Python metadata.
>> >
>> > At the moment that's manual work which needs to be handled
>> > independently for each binary ecosystem, but there's no reason it has
>> > to be that way - we can do a better job of defining the source
>> > dependencies, and then hook into release-monitoring.org to
>> > automatically rebuild the downstream binaries (including adding new
>> > external dependencies if needed) whenever new upstream releases are
>> > published.
>>
>> JSON (JSON-LD) would likely be most platform compatible (and designed
for interoperable graph nodes and edges with attributes).
>>
>> JSON-LD does not require a specific library iff the @context is not
necessary.
>>
>> Notes about JSON-LD and interoperable software package metadata:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2015-April/026108.html
>
> What does JSON-LD have to do with this conversation, Wes? No discussion
of implementation has even begun, let alone worrying about data formats.
This is purely a discussion of problem space and what needs to be solved
and is not grounded in concrete design yet.
Really?
Why would a language designed for graphs be appropriate for expressing
graphs and constraints?
The problem is: setuptools packages cannot declare dependency edges to
things that are not Python packages; and, basically portage ebuild USE
flags for attributes.
Now, as ever, would be a good time to learn to write a JSONLD @context (for
the existing fragmented packaging system standards (that often require code
execution to read/generate JSON metadata (because this is decidable))).
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
