On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:09 AM, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > I think you've got things backwards here. It's you who's been arguing > that the solution to the problem of "improved uptime and security" is > best implemented by "ban all non-PyPI hosting".
The uptime problem is *only* solvable by minimizing the number of hosts involved. The minimum number of hosts is one. That means we should get all releases onto PyPI. This has been obvious for years, and I'm overjoyed to see that work is finally being done to make that happen. Discussion should be about how to best do that, not if we should do that or not. We can also discuss wordings. Nobody is for example trying to strictly speaking ban hosting on other hosts than PyPI. But if you do host on another server, your package will not be a part of the Python ecosystem, and it will not be installable by easy_install or pip or buildout, etc. You can call that a "ban" if you want, but maybe that causes negative connotations that are best avoided. But what ever you call it the end goal and result is the same. Packages not hosted on PyPI will not be easily installable. This is, and must be, the end goal. Now let's discuss how to get there instead. //Lennart _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig