Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Michael Crute wrote: > On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: >>> Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I believe this is a reasonable >>> goal.  I think if "we" (Catalog-SIG?  PyPI maintaine

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:51 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > >> I'm maintaining a todo list within my fork at >> http://github.com/mcrute/chishop/blob/master/TODO and would very much >> appreciate any input you might have as to which features are most >> important for official compatibility and what i

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: >> Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I believe this is a reasonable >> goal. I think if "we" (Catalog-SIG? PyPI maintainers?) committed to using >> such an implementation (assuming

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: .. >> Out of curiosity : have you ever worked with the current implementation ? >> >> I have hard time to understand why some people say it's hard to work with >> it, >> I don't think its a valid argument. > > I haven't looked at it in years, but

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

Am 19.06.2010 01:57, schrieb P.J. Eby: At 01:07 AM 6/19/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Am 18.06.2010 18:47, schrieb Mark Ramm: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: It does? I thought PyPI kept everything around (but hidden) unless the author went in and manually delete

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

It's useful to have a representative data set to test with, especially for stuff like performance testing. Couldn't that be obtained through one of the many mirroring libraries? If it's going to be a complete rewrite, anyway, I doubt that a dump according to the current db schema would help.

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > > With all the reliability discussion, I thought I'd offer a kind of > > counterproposal, that we rewrite PyPI to use App Engine. > > > > Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I be

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

At 01:07 AM 6/19/2010 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Am 18.06.2010 18:47, schrieb Mark Ramm: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: It does? I thought PyPI kept everything around (but hidden) unless the author went in and manually deleted old stuff. You just need to go to a

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

I'm maintaining a todo list within my fork at http://github.com/mcrute/chishop/blob/master/TODO and would very much appreciate any input you might have as to which features are most important for official compatibility and what is missing from that list. The absolute requirement is that any UR

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > With all the reliability discussion, I thought I'd offer a kind of > counterproposal, that we rewrite PyPI to use App Engine. > > Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I believe this is a reasonable > goal.  I think if "we" (Catalog-SIG

Re: [Catalog-sig] Proposal: Move PyPI static data to the cloud for better availability

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:47 PM, wrote: [..] > > There are (multiple!) open source implementations of the Amazon API.  If > Amazon decides to discontinue their cloud services (something I doubt should > really be one of the top ten concerns here), then anyone else can set up > their own cloud wi

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

Am 18.06.2010 18:47, schrieb Mark Ramm: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: It does? I thought PyPI kept everything around (but hidden) unless the author went in and manually deleted old stuff. You just need to go to a deep link, e.g., http://pypi.python.org/pypi/SomePac

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> I would very much like to see pypi start using chishop. I've been >> working to implement the complete set of features that pypi supports >> (including the mirroring PEP) for use inside of the company I work >> for. The code is in reason

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

I would very much like to see pypi start using chishop. I've been working to implement the complete set of features that pypi supports (including the mirroring PEP) for use inside of the company I work for. The code is in reasonably good shape and I would love to see that become the official imple

Re: [Catalog-sig] PyPI template improvements

setuptools used to parse the main web pages of PyPI. This was then changed and the /simple index invented. All recent versions of setuptools default to using the /simple index. See my response, though. The old versions still need to be supported. Regards, Martin

Re: [Catalog-sig] PyPI template improvements

a question from me. Does setuptools browse the main pypi pages or does it use the simple version? Both. Old versions (which still need to be supported) go to the main pages; new versions to the simple index. IOW, you need to maintain all links on the main pages that also exist on the simple

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:13 PM, P.J. Eby wrote: > If you give pip or easy_install (or I assume buildout) a requirement like >> Foo==0.1, then they will look at >> http://pypi.python.org/simple/Foo/0.1, >> > > > easy_install doesn't do that, unless you exp

Re: [Catalog-sig] Proposal: Move PyPI static data to the cloud for better availability

On 09:39 pm, ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: It is likely that some people will setup a mirror and then "forget" to take care about it. Like our buildbots really. The same can hap

Re: [Catalog-sig] Proposal: Move PyPI static data to the cloud for better availability

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" > wrote: >>> >>> It is likely that some people will setup a mirror and then "forget" to >>> take care >>> about it. Like our buildbots really. >> >> >> The same can happen to any infrastructur

Re: [Catalog-sig] Extra links on the PyPI /simple index package pages

At 11:10 AM 6/18/2010 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Am 17.06.2010 15:16, schrieb M.-A. Lemburg: >> Benji York wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: http://pypi.python.org/simple/zc.buildout/ BTW: what are all those bug links doin

Re: [Catalog-sig] Extra links on the PyPI /simple index package pages

At 11:01 AM 6/18/2010 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: A simple security hole would be having a homepage that is a wiki -- anyone could edit the wiki and put up a link to a trojan package and it could get found and installed. Of course, that's also a security hole even if you're *not* using an autom

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

At 12:01 PM 6/18/2010 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Mark Ramm <m...@geek.net> wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> It does?  I thought PyPI kept everything around

Re: [Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > With all the reliability discussion, I thought I'd offer a kind of > counterproposal, that we rewrite PyPI to use App Engine. > > Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I believe this is a reasonable > goal.  I think if "we" (Catalog-SI

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Mark Ramm wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" > wrote: > >> It does? I thought PyPI kept everything around (but hidden) unless the > >> author went in and manually deleted old stuff. You just need to go to a > >> deep link, e.g., http:/

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:36 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> Now, please tell me what you would do if sourceforge changes its url and >> returns a >> 404 on the old download page. Would you update all release informations? Well, at this point if sourceforge 404'ed on an old download page (as oppo

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> It does?  I thought PyPI kept everything around (but hidden) unless the >> author went in and manually deleted old stuff.  You just need to go to a >> deep link, e.g., http://pypi.python.org/pypi/SomePackage/0.1 > > Sure, but owners *do*

[Catalog-sig] Rewrite PyPI for App Engine?

With all the reliability discussion, I thought I'd offer a kind of counterproposal, that we rewrite PyPI to use App Engine. Of course, this means writing code, etc., but I believe this is a reasonable goal. I think if "we" (Catalog-SIG? PyPI maintainers?) committed to using such an implementatio

Re: [Catalog-sig] Extra links on the PyPI /simple index package pages

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:10 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> > If you think the package owner is opening up a security threat by >> > including the links in the first place - yes, that's indeed a risk. >> >> Is this feature still needed for se

Re: [Catalog-sig] Extra links on the PyPI /simple index package pages

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:10 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > If you think the package owner is opening up a security threat by > > including the links in the first place - yes, that's indeed a risk. > > Is this feature still needed for setuptools ? > It's fairly regularly used to link to repositori

Re: [Catalog-sig] Extra links on the PyPI /simple index package pages

"Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Am 17.06.2010 15:16, schrieb M.-A. Lemburg: >> Benji York wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: http://pypi.python.org/simple/zc.buildout/ BTW: what are all those bug links doing on the zc.buildout index page ? >>> >>> PyPI scrap

Re: [Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 16:59, Tres Seaver wrote: > All of which make it impossible to reliably and repeatably deploy > arbitrary software configurations (directly) from PyPI. Managing your > own project-specific index is the only real solution. > When I provide buildout configurations for open

Re: [Catalog-sig] PyPI template improvements

Simon de Vlieger wrote: > On 17 jun 2010, at 22:44, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > >>> In web app land, "supported browsers" usually means the ones the >>> designer targets: e.g., including "IE>= 7" in the list means that the >>> designer doesn't have to include workarounds for stupid glitches in >>> e

Re: [Catalog-sig] PyPI template improvements

On 17 jun 2010, at 22:44, Martin v. Löwis wrote: In web app land, "supported browsers" usually means the ones the designer targets: e.g., including "IE>= 7" in the list means that the designer doesn't have to include workarounds for stupid glitches in earlier IEs (or even test the design aga