On May 16, 2014, at 3:27 PM, Carl Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Basically, I think some acknowledgment of this problem of packages >>> without active maintainers (and ideally a proposed solution to it) >>> should be in PEP 470. >> >> Right now the PEP's (and my) position is that it breaks because I believe >> that >> the impact of this change is being overblown. I'm attempting to gather more >> data now. > > You could be right. More data would certainly be good. > > Thanks for all your work on all this stuff! > > Carl
So I’ve went ahead and processed the data. I did this by taking the list of
projects which *only* host externally, either safely or unsafely. This ended up
being a little over 1700 projects. After that I took the log file from PyPI for
2014-05-14 and looked for any hits on their simple page by pip or setuptools. I
only looked for these two in order to exclude mirroring clients and the like.
The end result is that 339 projects have any hits at all, ~1400 projects did
not receive any hits to their simple page in that time at all. A handful of
projects received significant hits, with PIL being an obvious outlier that
received ~72k.
Here are the list of projects that received any hits to their simple page which
are hosted completely off of PyPI:
https://gist.github.com/dstufft/5ebfb0d7e53194e5f89e
I feel that this validates my assumption that the vast bulk of these external
projects are vestigial.
-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
