On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:42:25 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> 1. a public statement by somebody that this is the protocol they would >>> actually want to use. I still don't see the need for mirroring, so >>> I would provide it independent of mirroring. >> >> There are consumers for this sure. >> >> Linux package maintainers, custom python distributions etc. > > Which one specifically? Linux package maintainers could find a use for it because they could more quickly get updates from package maintainers. Specifically, any distro that repackages from pypi. Custom Distributions : ActiveState Also, end users. Even end users could read a package feed from pypi and it could enable an update. That would be good for python 3. >>> 2. a recommendation what specific hub to use. I would prefer not to run >>> my own, let alone implementing a hub as part of PyPI (although >>> contributions are welcome). You don't need to run it. It can be run "anywhere" on the internet. >> You can control access with username/password pairs. Or allow self >> registration. > > See, this is precisely the kind of stuff I don't have *any* cycles for. > I don't want to run another service, and worry about people using it > to break into python.org. Oh please. A jabber server can run on any machine 'anywhere' on the internet. Saying that running a jabber service on some machine will bring down python.org stretches my imagination at least. > I didn't propose RSS. Robert Kern did, by proposing to use > pubsubhubbub (although the specification seems to favor ATOM). Well it's probably a good suggestion. I'm sure you will come to some decision. David _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
