On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 13:56 +0100, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 28-02-13 10:43, holger krekel wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:38 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> >>
> >>I give a shit at the arguments pulled out every time by package
> >>maintainers using PyPI only for listing their packages. I am both
> >>annoyed and bothered by these people.
> >
> >I didn't see such positions from package maintainers here. In fact
> >i haven't seen anyone stepping up saying listing packages externally
> >is a great idea. Could you point to those posts?
>
> The position Andreas probably means is projects that *do* advertise
> themselves on pypi, but don't put their files there.
It has been an accepted practise for 10 years.
> I have seen that position in this discussion ("I have to upload 120
> files per release, so I won't do that", for instance).
haven't seen that.
> Some arguments might be valid, but these projects *are*, taken as
> one group, actively breaking pip and buildout regularly.
yes, and it's annoying, fully agreed.
> So I agree with Andreas. I don't really care about "the arguments
> pulled out every time". Effectively actively breaking pip and
> buildout is bad, period.
I consider it a valid concern that taking homepage/download urls away
from pypi's server index is likely to break things for users. I don't
see the point of doing that if we can have a better migration path by
working on the installers (like is currently ongoing). Let's please
not do a black&white discussion here and try to improve the overall
situation, not just a particular aspect in a particular way.
holger
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
Catalog-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
