On Dec 26, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
> Right now I don't know any way to say 'under no circumstances,
> ever, let easy_install near my code because it will do very bad things
> to it'.
Uh...I think you just did.
> I liked things a whole lot better when pypi was about being a package
> index, and _only_ about being a package index, and where those people
> who had ideas about improving the user experience were free to go out
> there and write their own programs to do the same, but where none of
> these has any sort of 'official recognition' and where, of course,
> others who didn't want that sort of experience were free to
> ignore the whole thing.
I think that, in the whole CPAN-ification of PyPI discussion, an absurd amount
feature creep has come into the discussion. I think the ratings discussion
was the tiny crystal that started the whole gigantic snowball.
At the bottom of everything CPAN's repository is just a glorified, rsync-able
FTP site with a bunch of stuff in directories. Everything on top of that is
window dressing.
The PyPI discussions seem to be tending toward mixing the window dressing with
the framing, to use a building analogy, and what that will result in is a weak
frame and ugly windows. A building that slowly (or quickly) falls down under
its own weight, and looks bad doing it.
I think that splitting
> package storage and pointers to off-repository storage (for those who
don't upload to PyPI)
> metadata about the stored packages
> tools for creating stored packages
> tools for retrieving stored packages
> tools for installing packages
would go a long way towards unobfuscating this whole discussion.
Yes, I'm sure someone will disagree with some fine-point of that division but
isn't that what woodshedding is all about?
S
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
