[Catalog-sig] What is the point of pythonpackages.com?
pydanny at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 22:42:02 CET 2012
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Stefan Krah <stefan-usenet at bytereef.org> wrote:
> Andreas Jung <lists at zopyx.com> wrote:
>> > I don't see any inconvenience since bytereef.org has a comparable
>> > uptime to python.org.
>> Not an argument. It is in the interest of all serious Python developers
>> that Python packages are maintained in a proper way on PyPI
>> (documentation, hosting, metadata etc.). Having a package on a private
>> server is often a single-point-of-failure and not acceptable for
>> professional deployments.
> Martijn Faassen has predicted that this would come up, so here it goes:
> If that's a point of failure then you are simply not doing a professional
> People who need guarantees like that should maintain their own package
> repository or try Enthought, ActiveState, etc.
I've been told that 'professional deployments should not been done
from PyPI for years. That's always irked me quite a bit, and I think
that things should change. In fact, I contend that as PyPI is the
canonical place for package listings, then that sentence is incredible
dismaying/shocking for new users of Python. How do Fedora/Ubuntu/Perl
and other systems work? Are their systems also modeled the same way?
So why can't PyPI become the best place for package downloads? The
technical obstacles are being overcome with mirrors and improved
architecture. As that occurs, I think a requirement for PyPI listing
should be that a copy of the posted version is on the site.
'Knowledge is Power'
More information about the Catalog-SIG