devpi-server-2.0.4 is a hotfix release to adapt to a pypi.python.org change
from three days ago which would cause devpi to fail installations
for packages like "Sphinx", "Django" ... because pypi now serves
them under their canonical name instead of the registered one.
As usual, docs for the de
> My view is that Python packaging should not support installation of
> files to anywhere other than subdirectories of the scheme [...]
For packages that need to install to absolute locations, I would
suggest that this be handled by a post-install scriptlocations
[...] Comments?
I'd prefer, an
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 14:58 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
> Right now the “canonical” page for a particular project on PyPI is whatever
> the
> author happened to name their package (e.g. Django). This requires PyPI to
> have
> some "smarts" so that it can redirect things like /simple/django/ to
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 4:53 PM, holger krekel wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 14:58 -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> Right now the “canonical” page for a particular project on PyPI is whatever
>> the
>> author happened to name their package (e.g. Django). This requires PyPI to
>> have
>> some "
FWIW, as a community member it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to
expect that a certain amount of advance notice be given for changes
like this, *especially* given that the tools are undocumented.
Also, there's a difference between notifying people and "running it
by" people (for permission). I t
Changes like what exactly? This was a fairly minor change which is why there
wasn't more notice.
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
>
> FWIW, as a community member it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to
> expect that a certain amount of advance notice be given for changes
> lik
On 2 Sep 2014 03:19, "Marcus Smith" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> My view is that Python packaging should not support installation of
>> files to anywhere other than subdirectories of the scheme [...]
>>
>> For packages that need to install to absolute locations, I would
>>
>> suggest that this be handled by a
I don't know exactly. I'd say a change that in your judgment you
think has a non-trivial chance of breaking existing tools. Holger is
probably in a better position to say. I was just speaking in support
of his request, which seemed reasonable to me.
--Chris
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Don
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 08:15 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> I don't know exactly. I'd say a change that in your judgment you
> think has a non-trivial chance of breaking existing tools. Holger is
> probably in a better position to say. I was just speaking in support
> of his request, which seemed
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 08:15 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
>> I don't know exactly. I'd say a change that in your judgment you
>> think has a non-trivial chance of breaking existing tools. Holger is
>> probably in a better position to say. I w
On 2 September 2014 12:54, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> I already give notice (and discussion, often times even PEPs) for any
>> change
>> that I believe to be breaking. Wanting more is wanting notice on every
>> single change on the off chance s
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:34:39PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I just pushed Donald's final round of edits in response to the
> feedback on the last PEP 440 thread, and as such I'm happy to announce
> that I am accepting PEP 440 as the recommended approach to identifying
> versions and specifying
12 matches
Mail list logo
