On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Jung <li...@zopyx.com> wrote: > Once again: I am talking about the majority of packages that are neither > commercial nor shipping without the Python source code.
This seems to say either that you don't care about the supposed minority of packages that are "justified" in not releasing or in removing sources, or that it will be easy to differentiate between such packages and the remainder of the packages that are to suffer your procrustean rules. I don't accept, and you certainly haven't made any arguments to support, either of those propositions. >> Suggesting that they can never remove a release from PyPI >> or are not allowed to rename a package is not going to >> attract more developers to PyPI. > > I would not care about such developers. Someone renaming or removing a > release and (intentionally breaking) the setup of other people acts > irresponsible. > > The basic question is: do we want PyPI being a reliable and valuable > community resource or a partly unflushed package toilet? Stipulated, you are unabashed in your lack of care for the needs of other PyPI users, for whom PyPI is already a valuable resource. In response, a question: is there anyone who supports this radical policy change who is NOT a zc.buildout user? Previously in this thread, there have been several plausible suggestions for modifying (improving?) zc.buildout to cope with the issues you've identified. Have you relayed these suggestions to the zc.buildout developers and administrators? Do you know for a fact that zc.buildout can't be fixed? If so, perhaps it should be removed from PyPI; I certainly wouldn't want to rely on it. cheers, Jess _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
