[Catalog-sig] an immutable mirror of PyPI

Martijn Faassen faassen at startifact.com
Tue Jul 5 16:18:54 CEST 2011

Hi there,

Thanks for your input, Jim.

> - IMO, PyPI should be more for package consumers than for producers. I
>  really have trouble fathoming the idea that a package index/catalog
>  of primarily for producers.  Perhaps I'm being dense.

Yes, I am being dense too, but then our perspective would be similar
given our shared experiences.

It seems clear from the responses by others that PyPI is seen as
primarily for producers, not consumers of packages. That's why I asked
whether PyPI is primarily a hosting site for developers (as opposed to
something like Debian or Wikipedia which have notions about a
collaborative effort of some kind, and care about preserving history).
>From what I can interpret: PyPI is there so developers don't have to
put the packages on their own web page, and to easily advertise that
their packages and releases exist. Any use by consumers of PyPI for
reuse of packages is secondary and really they should implement their
own systems for reusing packages that does not rely on PyPI beyond an
initial download.

Is this a correct interpretation? Some more elaboration on the
thinking behind this principle would be welcome.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:

>  IMO, it would be enough to warn someone about to delete that someone
>  might be depending on the release and that deleting it could cause
>  them hassle.

Yes, this would indeed be helpful, as I expressed elsewhere.



More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list