Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
[..]
Those scripts already exist and are in usage in the tools that are
mirroring pypi. They are not rsync but http calls, but that's about it.
Ok, so that wheel has already been reinvented :-)
That's
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Like I said: the PEP can be used to document the technical requirements
of being accepted as official mirror, but it doesn't cover any
of the legal requirements the PSF will need to put in place in
order to prevent unofficial mirrors
Ok - as we are discussing official
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
What about restricting the mirrors to the non web part in that case ?
I think MAL is talking about a completely different setup: the
unofficial mirror. The unofficial mirror doesn't follow any protocol;
it's just a mirror of PyPI using the standard API to fetch all
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
OK. That's not what I understood since he proposed a cloud system run
by the PSF for the PyPI mirrors. Which implied (to me) those were
official mirrors.
For some reason (which I don't understand) MAL is opposed to the notion
of mirrors. If the complaints about a
This is copied from the XML-SIG which doesn't seem to be too heavily followed...
I'm working on finishing up my pypi metadata mirror and have run into an
apparent XML-RPC MultiCall issue.
This is using the MultiCall RPC interface on PyPi with my currently unversioned
pypimirror user-agent (in
In order to make it clear that PyPI data may only be mirrored
for redistribution with PSF authorization, we need to add proper
notices to PyPI and also prevent such mirroring technically
(if possible).
However, I don't think this is factually the case: *anybody*
can indeed mirror the data in
At 11:11 PM 1/22/2010 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In order to make it clear that PyPI data may only be mirrored
for redistribution with PSF authorization, we need to add proper
notices to PyPI and also prevent such mirroring technically
(if possible).
However, I don't think this is
