[Distutils] Other ideas from today's packaging meetup at EuroPython

[Donald Stufft]

On July 25, 2014 at 4:36:17 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncoghlan at gmail.com) wrote:

On 25 Jul 2014 17:46, "Chris Withers" <chris at simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2014 17:44, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>> Also, reject uploads that are not released under a DFSG license
>
>
> What's a DFSG license>
>
>> or lack
>> man pages.
>
>
> Are you serious?

I took it as a sarcastic comment cryptically expressing disagreement with the notion of accommodating reasonable requests from redistributors by positing a slippery slope argument where we start asking upstream to enforce evermore of our policy guidelines to make our lives easier, even when those changes aren't of any benefit to *arbitrary* redistributors (let alone folks doing their own system integration). With a Linux vendor employee responsible for approving the packaging metadata PEPs, I think it's a reasonable concern (although it could have been better expressed).

However, while access to a source tarball (or the ability to create one) is indeed a gating criterion for entry to downstream build systems, I don't think *mandating* source package upload to PyPI is a necessary part of the answer. We can nudge people in that direction, and make uploading source in addition to binaries the path of least resistance, but I don't think we need to cross the line into enforcement. Packages without readily available source uploads just won't be redistributed (except in cases like OpenStack where we get the original source from somewhere else).

Yea, I’m not sure whether I like it or not. Probably once we get a for real build farm for PyPI setup that will be a pretty reasonable sized carrot for people to upload sources.


-- 
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20140725/08b33a13/attachment.html>