Re: [Distutils] pypi.python Error 403 Forbidden

On 16.02.2018 0:22, Heiko L. wrote: https://www2.fh-lausitz.de/launic/comp/tmp/180212.install_python_setuptools_tour.pdf Those instructions are hacky, unsupported and obsolete. See https://packaging.python.org/tutorials/installing-packages/ -- Regards, Ivan

Re: [Distutils] pypi.python Error 403 Forbidden

On 16 February 2018 at 07:20, Heiko L. wrote: > A user should be able to decide for himself whether to use HTTP or HTTPS. No, as without any other form of package or metadata signing, we're currently relying heavily on transport layer security to ensure that the information

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - Package metadata version 2.1

On 15 February 2018 at 20:52, Dustin Ingram wrote: > Sounds good. I've made the following edits, does this suffice? > > @ pep-0566.rst:84 @ Name > The specification for the format of this field is now identical to the > distribution name specification defined in PEP 508.

[Distutils] pypi.python Error 403 Forbidden

hallo Matthew, > Can you use pip to install your software instead?What are you no. > trying to install, exactly? Is it just this old version of https://www2.fh-lausitz.de/launic/comp/tmp/180212.install_python_setuptools_tour.pdf > setuptools? Why do you need that? > installation prog

[Distutils] pypi.python Error 403 Forbidden

Hallo Marius, >> After a few hours I found the following article: >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2017-October/031712.html >> ...you can no longer access /simple/ and /packages/ over HTTP and you will >> have to directly go to HTTPS >> >> - It is true? > > Yes. > >> -

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - Package metadata version 2.1

Sounds good. I've made the following edits, does this suffice? @ pep-0566.rst:84 @ Name The specification for the format of this field is now identical to the distribution name specification defined in PEP 508. +Description +::: +In addition to the

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - Package metadata version 2.1

Doing fine. Hashes do not belong in this PEP, which is intended to do just a little more than document the status quo. The document does provide for future enhancements to the spec without using the PEP process. Personally I am not a fan of putting concrete requirements or hashes of specific

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - Package metadata version 2.1

I agree but have simply not had time. Edit it to add something like "Instead of a description header, the description may be provided in the message body, e.g. after a completely blank line to end the headers, followed by the long description with no indentation or other special formatting

[Distutils] PEP 566 - Package metadata version 2.1

I'd like to once again prod this PEP towards completion: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0566/ The version numbering question has been decided in favour of calling it 2.1. The remaining question I'm aware of is whether to make the body text (in the email format of the metadata file)

Re: [Distutils] Documenting project_urls to suggesting thanking or funding mechanisms

That works for me. I'm happy to document both. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Wayne Werner wrote: > FWIW, some people aren't in it for the money, but would enjoy gratitude > . > > I'd personally do `{'funding': 'https://fundme.example.com',

Re: [Distutils] Documenting project_urls to suggesting thanking or funding mechanisms

FWIW, some people aren't in it for the money, but would enjoy gratitude . I'd personally do `{'funding': 'https://fundme.example.com', 'thanks': ' https://saythanks.io/to/waynew '}`

[Distutils] Documenting project_urls to suggesting thanking or funding mechanisms

Hello distutils-sig! This email comes to you by way of an issue I filed ( https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1276), the tl:dr; of which is: I would like it to be easier for packages and package maintainers to indicate how they want to be thanked or funded for their work. I created