> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 19:48, Sebastien Douche <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is there significant interest in doing this? >> >> YES! ;) >> >> In that case, what answer >>> options should we have? >> >> Always upload a version to PyPI, the only way to have a reliable, > > The question was if there was interest in sending out a questionnaire > to maintainers. > Forcing uploads to PyPI is a debate that has been flogged to death.
In this day and age it just may not viable to do that. If PEP-345 could be adjusted to have a code a Code-Repository option then it wouldn't be so difficult to use a bot on pypi to pull code *in*, test it and package it. Developers don't always have time to drop back to a command line and build and upload using a command line tool that takes 30 seconds. Especially already after they have done a 'hg push' or 'svn commit..' to their own repository. I'd hazzard a guess but I'd say that 80% of pypi projects would be better served with a (external) code repository reference than actually keeping everything built on pypi. And asking the package creators to do that. Here, I don't want to throw away pypi. Clearly it needs to stay and retain its traditional operating mode. I'm just making the point that a simpler Metadata based solution could might serve the needs of users more. David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
