> I'm talking about the scenario where the authors did get correct > information into the index, and > information such as package description, authors, classifiers etc are > still all correct, and the only thing that broke is > the download link. I.e. all the information *managed* by PyPI is > correct but what PyPI is pointing to isn't any more. This is an > incorrectness that isn't under PyPI's control. It's similar to the > situation where a website URL that a PyPI page points to breaking, but > with more serious consequences for tools. This is because release > files are a bit more like package metadata than they are like links.
I agree that it's more serious to the users (although I find a stale home page or an incorrect contact email address fairly serious too). I still maintain that none of this incorrectness is PyPI's "fault", or that we should feel responsible for fixing it. It's just a storage of information, with no responsibility on python.org's side except to preserve the data (within legal and moral boundaries). If you, for some reason, don't like packages who don't upload their source code to PyPI, then don't use them. Out of principle, I personally don't use non-free software if there is a free alternative available (regardless where it's hosted), but I wouldn't demand that all software on PyPI must be free. Likewise, you really should accept the status quo with respect to file hosting as a good thing: people apparently *want* to do things in different ways, also in ways that you consider unprofessional and hurtful to the users of the software. Just don't use such packages if you don't like them. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
