Add link to .pypirc specification

[bhrutledge]

Related to pypa/twine#638 and pypa/packaging.python.org#730, I wrote a spec based on the one that was removed in #13087. However, a Google search for "pypirc" turned up at least one blog post that links to https://docs.python.org/3/distutils/packageindex.html#the-pypirc-file, which now just links to this document. So, I thought a link to the spec would be handy.

Automerge-Triggered-By: @jaraco

[the-knights-who-say-ni]

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Recognized GitHub username

We couldn't find a bugs.python.org (b.p.o) account corresponding to the following GitHub usernames:

@bhrutledge

This might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in one's b.p.o account settings. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at this contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

[bhrutledge]

@jaraco As a contributor to cpython and twine, do you have any suggestions on how to move this forward?

[jaraco]

LGTM

[bhrutledge]

Thanks, @jaraco This seems like it might be stalled on Travis, but it's not clear to me how to a) find the stalled build or b) restart it without pushing a commit.

[jaraco]

Closed and re-opened.

[miss-islington]

@bhrutledge: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

[bhrutledge]

Thanks, @jaraco. It's unclear to me how this actually ends up being visible on https://docs.python.org/3/distributing/index.html#publishing-python-packages.

Does it need to be backported?

Looking at the documentation guide, I'm expecting it be visible here in the next day: https://docs.python.org/dev/distributing/index.html#publishing-python-packages

[bhrutledge]

Also, thanks for merging my first contribution to CPython! And for bearing with my questions. 😉

Poking around a bit, it looks like #20629 is a similarly small docs PR that got the backport treatment.

FWIW, it looks like this change would be relevant as far back as 2.7:
https://docs.python.org/2.7/distributing/index.html#publishing-python-packages

[jaraco]

Does it need to be backported?

I'm unsure. My guess is yes if it needs to appear in docs for Python 3.9 or earlier.

Also, thanks for merging my first contribution to CPython! And for bearing with my questions. 😉

And thanks to you for fearlessly diving into CPython!

Poking around a bit, it looks like #20629 is a similarly small docs PR that got the backport treatment.

FWIW, it looks like this change would be relevant as far back as 2.7:
https://docs.python.org/2.7/distributing/index.html#publishing-python-packages

Thanks for investigating.

There's definitely a judgment call here. I'd argue that Python 2.7 shouldn't get any updates (support is summarily dropped), but perhaps this could be backported to bugfix-supported Python versions (3.8+ at this point). I'd be strongly inclined to backport to 3.9 (still in beta) and maybe to 3.8.

[miss-islington]

Thanks @bhrutledge for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[miss-islington]

Thanks @bhrutledge for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[bedevere-bot]

GH-21018 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.

[bedevere-bot]

GH-21019 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch.

[bhrutledge]

It worked! Thanks again!

https://docs.python.org/3/distributing/index.html#publishing-python-packages