Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 19 November 2015 at 06:14, Marcus Smith wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> Only half way thinking about this right this moment, but I think so yes. >> It’s largely designed for private use cases which is why it’s not allowed on >> PyPI. It’s essentially a replac

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Robert Collins
I think we should start supporting that, yes. On 19 November 2015 at 09:14, Marcus Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith wrote: >> >>> >>> > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Marcus Smith
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith wrote: > > >> > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any >> tool >> > decides can be an artifact reference? >> >> We can define the syntax without capturing all the

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Marcus Smith wrote: > > > > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any tool > > decides can be an artifact reference? > > We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which > is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does.

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Robert Collins
On 19 November 2015 at 08:40, Marcus Smith wrote: >> >> > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any >> > tool >> > decides can be an artifact reference? >> >> We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which >> is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP do

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Marcus Smith
> > > > Will "direct references" ever be well-defined? or open to whatever any > tool > > decides can be an artifact reference? > > We can define the syntax without capturing all the tool support, which > is what PEP-440 and thus this PEP does. > so, to be clear, what syntax for the URI portion do

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Robert Collins
On 19 November 2015 at 07:30, Marcus Smith wrote: >> >> Its included in the complete grammar, otherwise it can't be tested. >> Note that that the PEP body refers to the IETF document for the >> definition of URIs. e.g. exactly what you suggest. > > > doesn't this imply any possible URI can theoret

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Marcus Smith
as it is, this PEP defers the concept of a "Direct Reference URL" to PEP440. but then PEP440 partially defers to PEP426's "source_url" concept, when it says "a direct URL reference may be a valid source_url entry" do we expect PEP440 to be updated to fully own what a "Direct Reference URL" can b

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Marcus Smith
> > > Its included in the complete grammar, otherwise it can't be tested. > Note that that the PEP body refers to the IETF document for the > definition of URIs. e.g. exactly what you suggest. > doesn't this imply any possible URI can theoretically be a PEP440 direct reference URI ? Is that true?

Re: [Distutils] FINAL DRAFT: Dependency specifier PEP

2015-11-18 Thread Robert Collins
I didn't realise PEP 440 refered to 426, though the reference is weak, its enumerating one valid sort of content to refer to (urls that are valid as source urls). -Rob On 19 November 2015 at 05:44, Marcus Smith wrote: > as it is, this PEP defers the concept of a "Direct Reference URL" to PEP440.