On Oct 13, 2015 9:40 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>
> On 14 October 2015 at 15:04, Wes Turner wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2015 7:50 PM, "Robert Collins"
wrote:
>
> > * egg-info and dist-info should generate JSONLD
>
> The .egg-info and .dist-info directories are existing defined formats,
> I don't
On 14 October 2015 at 15:04, Wes Turner wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2015 7:50 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
> * egg-info and dist-info should generate JSONLD
The .egg-info and .dist-info directories are existing defined formats,
I don't see any way that they can be retroactively defined as being
JSONLD
On Oct 13, 2015 7:50 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>
> On 14 October 2015 at 12:39, Wes Turner wrote:
> >
>
> > (.cfg | .yml) > JSONLD
> >
> > Should these build settings all be included in e.g. PEP 426 + JSONLD
> > metadata.jsonld?
> > - for backward compat, there would then be both metadata.
On 14 October 2015 at 12:39, Wes Turner wrote:
>
> (.cfg | .yml) > JSONLD
>
> Should these build settings all be included in e.g. PEP 426 + JSONLD
> metadata.jsonld?
> - for backward compat, there would then be both metadata.json and
> metadata.jsonld (because of normative JSONLD form and PEP
On 14 October 2015 at 13:25, Marcus Smith wrote:
>
>
> thanks for the summary!
>
>
>> * Things that have reason to change (deps) are more reasonable to be
>> dynamic (even with PEP-426 markers there are exceptions)
>
>
> as we know, for *many* cases, run-time deps aren't dynamic.
> is there a co
thanks for the summary!
* Things that have reason to change (deps) are more reasonable to be
> dynamic (even with PEP-426 markers there are exceptions)
>
as we know, for *many* cases, run-time deps aren't dynamic.
is there a consensus for those cases? exist in the sdist metadata? or no?
or ma
On Oct 13, 2015 6:01 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>
> On 14 October 2015 at 05:09, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was going to send around a summary from this meeting, but I seem to
have
> > come down with the flu last night. So if someone else wants to do it
while
> > it's fresh in
But even if so do we WANT to now be supporting 4 Windows platforms?
win32
win32_sse2
win64
win64_sse2
and then, what about sse3, etc???
Longer term, more platforms (particularly more platforms that really only
differ by some compiler flags) shouldn’t be a very big deal, because my
dream for PyPI
On 14 October 2015 at 05:09, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was going to send around a summary from this meeting, but I seem to have
> come down with the flu last night. So if someone else wants to do it while
> it's fresh in our minds, that'd be great, or else I'll try to get to it next
>
On October 13, 2015 at 1:07:44 PM, Chris Barker (chris.bar...@noaa.gov) wrote:
yeah, that's the trick with trying to shoehorn dependencies liek this into
platform tags.
But even if so do we WANT to now be supporting 4 Windows platforms?
win32
win32_sse2
win64
win64_sse2
and then, what about sse
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Steve Dower
wrote:
> And it's also not binding on redistributors or package builders, who are
> free to add more restrictive requirements.
>
not binding, but presumably a simple:
setup.py build
with distutils (or setuptools) will NOT use SSE2 in this case? Th
Hi all,
I was going to send around a summary from this meeting, but I seem to have
come down with the flu last night. So if someone else wants to do it while
it's fresh in our minds, that'd be great, or else I'll try to get to it
next week or so.
Cheers,
-n
On Oct 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Nathaniel Sm
12 matches
Mail list logo
