[Catalog-sig] If PyPI is more strict with its packages, may be we can build binary packages from them directly.

["Martin v. Löwis"]

> I'm writing pypi2pkgsys: http://code.google.com/p/pypi2pkgsys/ .
> I noticed that the name, license of python modules registered in PyPI
> is really a miss. Such as 'Are You Human?', even easy-install can not
> install them with these strange name.

I don't really see the problem. Sure, it is very difficult to fetch this
record from PyPI. But then, it's the package author's fault if his
package is inaccessible.

If you have an automated tool to access packages, just skip over the
packages that you cannot access. This wouldn't be very different from
the case where PyPI would have been more strict: just presume that the
package is not there if you don't like its name.

> If PyPI is more strict in name, license and its format, automatically
> package install within the distribution package management system should
> be possible.

But it is possible already! See above.

While I can sympathize with a desire to enforce a certain package name
syntax, I am unsure what licenses have to do with it. Why should PyPI
enforce a policy on the license field, and what should that policy be?

Regards,
Martin