Re: Deprecate External Links

On 28 February 2013 20:09, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:48 +1100, Richard Jones wrote:
>> On 28 February 2013 08:31, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > OTOH, I currently make development snapshots of setuptools and other
>> > projects available by dumping them in a directory that's used as an
>> > external download URL.  Replacing that would be a PITA because PyPI
>> > only lets you upload and register new releases from distutils' command
>> > line.  Basically, I'd need to use a download link that pointed to a
>> > "latest" URL that redirected to the final download.
>>
>> Yup, and the down-side of distutils as the tool for talking to PyPI
>> is, of course, the horrendous turn-around time trying to add features
>> or fix bugs.
>>
>> I've advocated us having the upload/register/whatever functionality in
>> a separate tool for a while, but that doesn't seem to have gained any
>> traction. Of course issues around the complexity introduced by
>> setup.py make it much harder.
>
> FWIW three days ago i presented at Pycon Russia a unifying cmdline
> workflow "meta" tool which configures and invokes setup.py
> [...]/pip/easy_install commands.  I intend to publish it soon and
> will also send a link once the video becomes available.
>
> IOW, i fully agree we need to move away from putting things into
> setup.py/distutils, start going for PEP426 etc. -- but WITHOUT breaking
> things for all the packaging upload/installation processes out there.
> Therefore a "meta tool" approach to make it easier for people to
> gradually move away from current practises.

Awesome!

For what it's worth I spent some time today trying to dig up some
actual stats on the number of packages with only download_url (roughly
10%) and how popular they are (roughly 90% of those packages were
looked up in the /simple index in the last day.) I'm still poking at
the numbers though.


    Richard