On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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). > > I think we all agree we should try and remove dead links or at least mark them as such. Google/wikipedia/download.com/etc wouldn't serve dead links in search results and I don't think we should treat PyPI as the Python Packaging Archive. I don't know how that can be done for contact email addresses but any url pypi points to (package host or website) should be checked once in a while imho. Yuval
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
