On 2 February 2015 at 03:04, Marcus Smith qwc...@gmail.com 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 | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
