On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 13:56 +0100, Reinout van Rees wrote: > On 28-02-13 10:43, holger krekel wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 06:38 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote: > >> > >>I give a shit at the arguments pulled out every time by package > >>maintainers using PyPI only for listing their packages. I am both > >>annoyed and bothered by these people. > > > >I didn't see such positions from package maintainers here. In fact > >i haven't seen anyone stepping up saying listing packages externally > >is a great idea. Could you point to those posts? > > The position Andreas probably means is projects that *do* advertise > themselves on pypi, but don't put their files there.
It has been an accepted practise for 10 years. > I have seen that position in this discussion ("I have to upload 120 > files per release, so I won't do that", for instance). haven't seen that. > Some arguments might be valid, but these projects *are*, taken as > one group, actively breaking pip and buildout regularly. yes, and it's annoying, fully agreed. > So I agree with Andreas. I don't really care about "the arguments > pulled out every time". Effectively actively breaking pip and > buildout is bad, period. I consider it a valid concern that taking homepage/download urls away from pypi's server index is likely to break things for users. I don't see the point of doing that if we can have a better migration path by working on the installers (like is currently ongoing). Let's please not do a black&white discussion here and try to improve the overall situation, not just a particular aspect in a particular way. holger _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig