Working group for Python CPAN-equivalence?

[Peter Billam]

On 2010-03-03, John Nagle <nagle at animats.com> wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Olof Bjarnason <olof.bjarnason at gmail.com> writes:
>>> The "Where is CPAN for Python?" question keeps popping up, with
>>> answers ranging from "There is no CPAN for Python" and "We already
>>> have CPAN for Python" (confusing).
>> 
>> Caused in no small measure by the fact that Perl people mean at
>> least two distinct things by “Where is CPAN for Python?”:
>> * The central package registry, CPAN, with metadata in a standard
>>   queryable format, and all registered packages redundantly mirrored
>>   and available for installation at user-specified versions.
>>   We have an equivalent in PyPI, though it's incomplete since
>>   many *registered* packages are not actually hosted *at* PyPI.
>
>     CPAN is a repository.   PyPi is an collection of links.
>     CPAN has over 260 mirrors.  PyPi has none.
>     CPAN enforces standard organization on packages.  PyPi does not.
>     CPAN has quality control, with testers and a test reporting system.
>     PyPi does not.

One important thing that CPAN does _not_ have is a formalised
"I put this module up for adoption" mechanism.  Debian has one,
for example.  It's necessary, because not having one leads to
many (in the long run, all) modules becoming unmaintained and
abandoned, even though they worked perfectly well and were very
useful to people...

It would also be nice to be able to get module download stats.

A very important thing about CPAN modules is the consistent
basic install method:   perl Makefile.PL ; make ; make install

I'm not sure if the Perl code that runs CPAN is free software... (?)

Regards,  (CPAN author)  Peter

-- 
Peter Billam       www.pjb.com.au    www.pjb.com.au/comp/contact.html