On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > Would it be acceptable then for a distro to disable __preview__ or empty it > out? > > The thinking goes like this: if you would normally use an __preview__ module > because you can't get approval to download some random package from PyPI, well > then your distro probably could or should provide it, so get it from them. In > fact, if the number of __preview__ modules is kept low, *and* PyPI equivalents > were a requirement, then a distro vendor could just ensure those PyPI versions > are available as distro packages outside of the __preview__ stdlib namespace > (i.e. in their normal third-party namespace). Then folks developing on that > platform could just use the distro package and ignore __preview__. > > If that's acceptable, then maybe it should be explicitly so in the PEP. I think that's an excellent idea - in that case, the distro vendor is taking over the due diligence responsibilities, which are the main point of __preview__. Similarly, sumo distributions like ActiveState or Python(x, y) could choose to add the PyPI version. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4