On 07/04/2011 09:34 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
I believe, as I've argued in the past, that PyPI's raison
d'être is to be a cataloging resource *for package authors* — if we
want to prevent fragmentation, then we have to make PyPI the "path of
least resistance" for packagers. This means PyPI can't be in the
business of making these sorts of decisions on authors' behalf.
Not that we shouldn't get upset when a package vanishes. I'd be all
for some public chastisement in those cases... (80% joking).
So can we then have *another* service running on python.org that keeps
all older revisions of packages around, for the convience of *package
users*? Because this is putting an extra burden on package users.
And also on package authors, by the way:
What if I release package foo, which needs package bar, version 2.1 or
version 2.2.
Now the author of package bar removes version 2.1 and 2.2. Now nobody
can use package foo anymore.
You can't argue that these people should've made a private mirror, as
this applies to all *future* users of package foo either. This might be
annoying to the author of foo...
And the packager of foo, who *is* using a private mirror as you are all
recommending, might not find out very quickly that this situation has
emerged. :)
Regards,
Martijn
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
