I think we should start supporting that, yes. On 19 November 2015 at 09:14, Marcus Smith <qwc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith <qwc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any >>> > tool >>> > decides can be an artifact reference? >>> >>> We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which >>> is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does. >> >> >> so, to be clear, what syntax for the URI portion does it define or >> require? (beyond it just being a valid URI) >> >> it sounds like you're saying nothing? i.e. although PEP440 says things >> like it "may" be a sdist or a wheel target or a "source_url", its wide open >> to whatever a tool may decide is a unique artifact reference? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >> >> >> >> Only half way thinking about this right this moment, but I think so yes. >> It’s largely designed for private use cases which is why it’s not allowed on >> PyPI. It’s essentially a replacement for dependency_links. > > > practically speaking, isn't it also a future replacement for > "<url>#egg=name" syntax in pip vcs urls?... i.e. using "name@<url>" > instead?
-- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig