On 14/6/21 11:03 pm, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021, at 18:21, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 10:47 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com
<mailto:ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
FYI, I noticed this package that claimed to be maintained by us:
https://pypi.org/project/numpy-aarch64/
<https://pypi.org/project/numpy-aarch64/>. That's not ours, so I
tried to contact the author (no email provided, but guessed the
same username on GitHub) and asked to remove it:
https://github.com/tomasriv/DNA_Sequence/issues/1
<https://github.com/tomasriv/DNA_Sequence/issues/1>.
There are a very large number of packages with "numpy" in the
name on PyPI, and there's no way we can audit/police that
effectively, but if it's a rebuild that pretends like it's
official then I think it's worth doing something about. It could
contain malicious code for all we know.
That is a pretty misleading package description, would have fooled me
if I didn't know better. I didn't get the impression it was
malicious, but still . . .
Maybe now is a good time to move to accept:
https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0036-fair-play.html
<https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0036-fair-play.html>
Stéfan
Having just re-read the NEP, I think the Motivation section should
mention name re-use: "Additionally, we wish to reduce confusion when
package names imply they are sanctioned or maintained by NumPy". Other
than that it looks good to me. Do you want to make a PR to add the
discussion and change the status, and notify the list of your intention
to accept it?
Matti
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
