[Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI
jess.austin at gmail.com
Thu Jun 17 21:58:17 CEST 2010
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Jung <lists at zopyx.com> wrote:
> Once again: I am talking about the majority of packages that are neither
> commercial nor shipping without the Python source code.
This seems to say either that you don't care about the supposed
minority of packages that are "justified" in not releasing or in
removing sources, or that it will be easy to differentiate between
such packages and the remainder of the packages that are to suffer
your procrustean rules. I don't accept, and you certainly haven't
made any arguments to support, either of those propositions.
>> Suggesting that they can never remove a release from PyPI
>> or are not allowed to rename a package is not going to
>> attract more developers to PyPI.
> I would not care about such developers. Someone renaming or removing a
> release and (intentionally breaking) the setup of other people acts
> The basic question is: do we want PyPI being a reliable and valuable
> community resource or a partly unflushed package toilet?
Stipulated, you are unabashed in your lack of care for the needs of
other PyPI users, for whom PyPI is already a valuable resource. In
response, a question: is there anyone who supports this radical policy
change who is NOT a zc.buildout user?
Previously in this thread, there have been several plausible
suggestions for modifying (improving?) zc.buildout to cope with the
issues you've identified. Have you relayed these suggestions to the
zc.buildout developers and administrators? Do you know for a fact
that zc.buildout can't be fixed? If so, perhaps it should be removed
from PyPI; I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it.
More information about the Catalog-SIG