On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Alex Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > > On 8/1/12 2:09 PM, Eric P. Mangold wrote: > [snip] > > >>>> Debian et. all solve this with signed packages. I would be happy to >>>> download >>>> Debian packages from http://pythonpackages.com all day long :) >>>> >>> >>> >>> That's good to know, and probably I direction I'd like to head in. >>> To be clear: I want to do any-useful-thing-I-can (within the >>> ballpark) in order to start alleviating pain points for folks today. >>> >> >> Cool, >> >> Well one thing would be to make all of your source code open-source, if >> that is not already the case(?) >> >> I can imagine wanting to run some pythonpackaging.com infrastructure >> outside of pythonpackages.com >> > > > I <3 open source and it could happen, but it hasn't yet (for various > reasons). I have a FAQ about it here: > > - http://docs.pythonpackages.**com/en/latest/faq.html#is-** > pythonpackages-com-open-source<http://docs.pythonpackages.com/en/latest/faq.html#is-pythonpackages-com-open-source> > > > Pasted what the FAQ says for reference: Is pythonpackages.com open source? The web application that powers pythonpackages.com is not open source, > however it uses open source software where and when applicable, and > permissible by license, in order to facilitate its operation. Furthermore, > pythonpackages.com has a large committment to the open source software > community in general, and strives to contribute as much as possible. All of > pythonpackages.com’s open source offerings are made available here: > https://github.com/pythonpackages. > It doesn't really explain why pythonpackages.com isn't open source. Keeping the project closed is your right. Though I can definitely understand why Eric or any package maintainer would worry of introducing a dependency on a black box that does binary magic. Yuval
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
