[Distutils] The mypy package

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sat Apr 16 04:36:45 EDT 2016

On 16 April 2016 at 01:10, Richard Jones <richard at python.org> wrote:
> Because this sort of thing has come up a lot in the past, and because I've
> copped trouble for mishandling it in the past, I took the trouble of writing
> up a formal description of how I handle these sorts of issues:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1elum7ENjQb0dLB4ATfYNtnXYVLUzsKacc0VWnHHJb2A/edit?usp=sharing
> I believe Donald follows the same, or a very similar procedure.
> In short, all that can be done has been done, from my perspective. Someone
> has published their module, and regardless of any opinion of it, or desire
> to also use that name, I have to respect that they published first. In the
> absence of explicit consent from them to do anything, my hands are tied.
> I've taken unilateral action in the past to my personal detriment.
> Of course, once I'm no longer a PyPI admin (I look forward to the day so
> very much) someone else will have to make these decisions.

I can understand your reasons for not wanting to take unilateral action.

I wonder, however, whether it would be reasonable to add an explicit
policy to PyPI (probably at the point of the switch to Warehouse)
requiring project owners to provide an active email address (where
"active" means, say, responding to an annual automated ping email to
confirm the project is still alive). There would obviously have to be
some sort of "legacy" exemption from this, and maybe a transition
process. It still wouldn't help if the author doesn't respond to
requests like Guido's, but at least it avoids the possibility that the
actual email address is dead.

Other than this, I don't think there's much that can be done here. The
"first come, first serve" nature of claiming names on PyPI is pretty
much part of the culture. Changing that would be a pretty hard sell
(as well as being a ton of work that no-one is likely to want to


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list