[Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI

Domen Kožar domen at dev.si
Fri Jun 18 01:29:09 CEST 2010

I'm looking at PyPi as infrastructure and upstream source for Linux

* Renaming packages

I would strongly say NO to this one. Once you make a release, don't
change it. If mistake in metadata/packaging was done, make new release
like 1.0 -> 1.0-r1

* Source code requirement

This one really depends on the main purpose of PyPi. If it's only there
as provider of metadata garbage, then no rules should be applied. If
it's main goal is to provide downloadable package companied with
metadata, then source could be an requirement. 

Companies using PyPi as index of metadata, that's nonsense. They can
setup their own pypi mirror and that would even be a more proper way.

My 2 cents, Domen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20100618/61b5d160/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list