On 16 February 2016 at 03:10, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > -The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutron configuration file for pip and other > +The file ``pypa.json`` acts as neutral configuration file for pip and other
Aw, I was looking forward to controlling my nuclear power plant with pip :-( Oh, and "acts as a" rather than just "acts as". > +We discussed having an sdist verb. The main driver for this was to make sure > +that build systems were able to produce sdists that pip can build - but this > is > +circular: the whole point of this PEP is to let pip consume such sdists > +reliably and without requiring an implementation of setuptools. Further, > while > +most everyone agrees that encouraging sdists to be uploaded to PyPI, there s/most/almost/ "to be uploaded to PyPI"... what? The phrase isn't complete. Presumably "is a good thing". > +wasn't complete consensus on that. And I didn't think there was any dispute over this. There were people who didn't want to disallow binary-only projects, but that's hardly the same as not encouraging people who *are* making sources public to put them in the same place as the binaries. I thought the key point was that we'd agreed to Nick's suggestion that we add some comments to the existing specifications to note that you could bundle up a source tree with a pypa.json and get something sufficient for new pips to install, so this provided a sufficiently well-defined "source upload format" to work until discussions on a new source format came to fruition? Specifically, my expectation is that this PEP require that the specification changes proposed by Nick be implemented. Sure, it's an informational change to a document, but it's important that this PEP acknowledge that the action was part of the consensus. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
