On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:50 AM Petr Viktorin <pviktori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Neal, > We had this conversation in the past (and you can see it in the change). > I don't think I can convince you, but I'll reiterate since it's new for > devel@. > > Unlike the "mandatory tests" issue elsewhere in this thread, using the > PyPI namespace is the main point of the change. I can't take it out. > > > On 15. 06. 21 2:11, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:02 PM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 6/14/21 1:53 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> This is completely unreasonable. The dist-info/egg-info data of a > >>> Python module is for generating dependencies, not for forcing people > >>> to deal with PyPI. > >> > >> > >> I don't think we can reasonably separate the two. > >> > >> https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610 > >> > >> (I believe this is the "namespace" issue mentioned in the proposed change.) > > > > You can. When it comes to distribution packages, we can maintain > > consistency of the package names referenced within the distribution. > > The point of this was to be able to use the names Python packages call > > themselves for dependencies. PyPI is merely a distribution center for > > such things. Fedora is another distribution center for such things. > > You can only separate the namespaces if you sacrifice interoberability, > i.e. allowing pip-installable packages to depend on Fedora packages. > It turns out you can already do that (venv --system-site-packages), and > users expect that dist-info project names use the PyPI namespace. This > is a current problem that we need to solve. > > There are other (harder) solutions for the issue than reusing the PyPI > namespace in Fedora, but why should we bother with them? There already > is an ecosystem-wide namespace; why should we add a Fedora-specific one? > (Or a Linux-distro-specific one, if we're interested in cross-distro > collaboration.) > > You seem to assume that registering/blocking a name on PyPI is hard. > I say it is not and I am willing to do it for packagers who need it. > (And to mitigate the bus factor, I'll make it a responsibility of Red > Hat's python-maint team.) > > > It's not terribly different from how organizations may have private > > Python package indexes that may use whatever names they want for > > Python software they build and release. > > I agree, in fact, I think Fedora's problems here are a subset of the > problems the private organizations have: if issues of proprietary corps > are solved, we can use the solution as well. (However, it'll need more > work than is necessary for Fedora/FOSS needs, so I don't want to drive > the effort.) > BUT, if the issues are solved, it'll likely be through namespacing: we'd > need to prefix our names with `fedora-` or `fedora:`. I still think it > is better for Fedora to reuse the public PyPI namespace rather than > start its own. As long as you don't make packagers deal with it, I'm fine with it. I'm okay with the PyPI contract as long as you don't make me or any other Fedora packager specifically deal with it. And I strongly suspect you're going to want automation in the future, but that choice is up to you. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
