On July 25, 2014 at 4:36:17 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014 17:46, "Chris Withers" <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2014 17:44, Daniel Holth wrote:
>>
>> Also, reject uploads that are not released under a DFSG license
>
>
> What's a DFSG license>
>
>> or lack
>> man pages.
>
>
> Are you serious?
I took it as a sarcastic comment cryptically expressing disagreement with the
notion of accommodating reasonable requests from redistributors by positing a
slippery slope argument where we start asking upstream to enforce evermore of
our policy guidelines to make our lives easier, even when those changes aren't
of any benefit to *arbitrary* redistributors (let alone folks doing their own
system integration). With a Linux vendor employee responsible for approving the
packaging metadata PEPs, I think it's a reasonable concern (although it could
have been better expressed).
However, while access to a source tarball (or the ability to create one) is
indeed a gating criterion for entry to downstream build systems, I don't think
*mandating* source package upload to PyPI is a necessary part of the answer. We
can nudge people in that direction, and make uploading source in addition to
binaries the path of least resistance, but I don't think we need to cross the
line into enforcement. Packages without readily available source uploads just
won't be redistributed (except in cases like OpenStack where we get the
original source from somewhere else).
Yea, I’m not sure whether I like it or not. Probably once we get a for real
build farm for PyPI setup that will be a pretty reasonable sized carrot for
people to upload sources.
--
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
