"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 05:41 PM 4/22/2006 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>I'm not sure that's what Terry meant - I took it to mean *make the spider >>part of PyPI itself*. > > Which would also be accomplished by using Grig's Cheesecake tool, since > it > uses easy_install to fetch the source.
I think Nick was much closer to what I meant. Let me try again. As I understood your post, setuptools/easyinstall has some spider, heuristic, and screen-scrape code that tries to fetch info that one would like to have been in PyPI, but is not. I inferred that if the fetched info is not cached anywhere, then mutiple clients would have to repeat the process. Based on this understanding, and cognizant that your project's newly elevated status opens options that you did not have before, I had three related suggestions: 1. Move appropriate code from all the clients to one server, either associated with the PyPI server or even that server itself. (Among other things, this would allow you to update heuristics, etc, without distribution to existing clients or worry about bloating them.) 2. Once missing info is discovered, save it so the discovery process is not repeated. 3. If the search fails, email *someone*. I suggested *either* the package author (under an authoritative signature) or a non-author volunteer who could proceed somehow, such as searching more or contacting the author as a human. If my premises above are mistaken, then the suggestions should be modified or discarded. However, I don't see how they conflict at all with a consumer rating system. Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
