<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">> I'm talking about the scenario where the authors did get correct<br>
> information into the index, and<br>
> information such as package description, authors, classifiers etc are<br>
> still all correct, and the only thing that broke is<br>
> the download link. I.e. all the information *managed* by PyPI is<br>
> correct but what PyPI is pointing to isn't any more. This is an<br>
> incorrectness that isn't under PyPI's control. It's similar to the<br>
> situation where a website URL that a PyPI page points to breaking, but<br>
> with more serious consequences for tools. This is because release<br>
> files are a bit more like package metadata than they are like links.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree that it's more serious to the users (although I find a stale<br>
home page or an incorrect contact email address fairly serious too).<br>
<br>
I still maintain that none of this incorrectness is PyPI's "fault",<br>
or that we should feel responsible for fixing it. It's just a storage<br>
of information, with no responsibility on <a href="http://python.org" target="_blank">python.org</a>'s side except to<br>
preserve the data (within legal and moral boundaries).<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think we all agree we should try and remove dead links or at least mark them as such. Google/wikipedia/<a href="http://download.com/etc">download.com/etc</a> wouldn't serve dead links in search results and I don't think we should treat PyPI as the Python Packaging Archive.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't know how that can be done for contact email addresses but any url pypi points to (package host or website) should be checked once in a while imho.</div><div><br></div><div>Yuval</div><div><br>
</div></div></div>