Ethan Furman <ethan <at> stoneleaf.us> writes: > On 09/19/2014 04:13 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > > > > I **strongly** concur with James here. This has flagrantly violated my trust in > > PyPI. > > > > I would much rather packages not be reclaimed than need to think about whether > > I trust the PyPI maintainers to do it. > > Having PyPI become full of cruft is not a tenable situation.
What is the problem with "cruft" exactly? I'm opposed to the idea that a package may be "transferred" to someone else without any explicit authorization from the original maintainer(s) (or author(s)). It is not a matter of waiting time or tools. It is morally unacceptable. If you want to maintain a package and the maintainer doesn't reply, there is a solution: fork the package (under a new name). If you don't want to see "stale" packages, there is a solution: build an optional filter into PyPI that only shows packages which have received an update in the last 12/24/36 months. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
