Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

index-servers vs. index_servers #366

Open
icemac opened this issue Mar 24, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

index-servers vs. index_servers #366

icemac opened this issue Mar 24, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@icemac
Copy link

icemac commented Mar 24, 2021

When using index-servers as suggested in the zest.releaser documentation, I get:

UserWarning: Usage of dash-separated 'index-servers' will not be supported in future versions. Please use the underscore name 'index_servers' instead

To prevent zest.releaser from uploading a package to PyPI (which was intended for a private PyPI server but had an equally named package on PyPI created by a different user) I had to use index-servers both in .pypirc and setup.cfg of the package. I am now going to switch both to index_servers and hope the best for the next release.

At least the documentation of zest.releaser could be adapted to this future warning.

@mauritsvanrees
Copy link
Member

This warning does not come from from zest.releaser.
Can you see where it comes from? Maybe setuptools or twine?

@icemac
Copy link
Author

icemac commented Mar 29, 2021

It comes from setuptools, but zest.releaser uses the deprecated spelling in its documentation.

@icemac
Copy link
Author

icemac commented Apr 6, 2021

Maybe it is too early for this change. twine does not support index_servers and the PyPA specification still uses the dashed version, too: https://packaging.python.org/specifications/pypirc/

Let me see what happens during the next releases I have to cut using zest.releaser. Maybe the problem lies somewhere else.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants