This Project Has Not Released Any Files
What is the reason for not publishing Python 2.0 on SF for download? SF certainly wouldn't be the primary source, but I think at least the source distribution should be available there, with the release notes telling where to get binary distributions (BeOpen, ActiveState, who else?) Regards, Martin
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:34:38PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
[Martin v. Loewis]
What is the reason for not publishing Python 2.0 on SF for download?
From BeOpen.com's POV, so long as they were paying major bills, they would rather have download traffic tickle their ad banners than SF's ad banners.
From our (PythonLabs) POV, another publishing site is more work, and one URL is about as good as any other. Besides, rising to the top of SF's "most active" list has not been an explicit life goal for any of us <wink>.
And here is where the larger community can help. Presuming that non-admins can publish files, then we could take on the burden of publishing the files via SF.
SF certainly wouldn't be the primary source, but I think at least the source distribution should be available there, with the release notes telling where to get binary distributions (BeOpen, ActiveState, who else?)
I didn't see any advantage claimed for publishing on SF. Without an advantage, the work/benefit ratio is infinite.
Work == 0 for you guys, presuming that non-admins can publish. [ off to take a look... ] Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
participants (3)
-
Greg Stein -
Martin v. Loewis -
Tim Peters