> Sure, of course it is a problem of the author. And this policy may help PyPI > to collect more packages for users. But this fault will defeat the user but > not > the author, why user have to bear the the fault of the author? Now there are > many packages in PyPI already, may be it is a time to let the author care > about > this problem to make the user more comfortable? :)
I fail to see why this creates a problem for the users. > In fact, pypi2pkgsys can scan PyPI catalog automatically and log all broken > packages automatically. There is the log statistics: > > $ sudo pypi-logstats.py /var/tmp/pypi/pypi2pkgsys.log > /var/tmp/pypi/pypi2pkgsys.log: 2902(59.95%) ok, 0( 0.00%) manual, > 1939(40.05%) bad. > > The reason of the damage is diversity, may be broken by bad name, may > be broken by > unrecognized license (Somebody use GPL, somebody use > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses/gpl.html, > somebody use http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php). Hmm. Maybe if you also look at the Trove classifiers, your recognition for licenses is better. I don't want to restrict package authors in the licenses that they chose for their software. If they chose a license that is not yet recognized, your tool certainly won't be able to map it to some well-known list of licenses (which you apparently need for some reason I don't understand). However, why should PyPI restrict the licenses for Python packages to the list of licenses that pyp2pkgsys supports? > Somebody embedded all of > the text into license argument of setup...... And the site of many > packages are not accessable, and > I can not get any code from them. And that's intentional. This is the Python Package *Index*, not a Python package repository. Some people chose to provide source code, others don't. Perhaps the package isn't even free software. > As I known, gentoo ebuild require a standardizied format on license. > I'm not want to apply the rule of > ebuild to PyPI, but just hope to refine it. As you see, for GPL, there > are many varieties in PyPI: > GPL, general public licence, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt, > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html,http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php > .... Hmm. I personally don't think anything should change about that. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
