On 2014-09-30 11:06:40 +0200 (+0200), M.-A. Lemburg wrote: [...] > You're regularly bringing up this argument. > > Let's just be fair here: external hosting of packages has been > made so user unfriendly in recent pip releases, that this has > pretty much become a non-option for anyone who wants to create a > user friendly package installation environment. [...]
And I'm seeing this argument regularly brought up as well. As a heavy user of Python packages and someone who maintains very large systems depending on them, I had a hard time trusting pip back when it still would spontaneously grab software from wherever the upstream author had decided to stick it that day (with whatever hosting stability issues that implied). Our projects would regularly audit our hundreds of requirements just to make sure nobody *accidentally* added one which was hosted off PyPI, and that our dependencies hadn't suddenly decided to start sticking new releases off PyPI. The suggestion that some developers want to control their release process *so* tightly that they host their software in random places without uploading them to the community package system or quietly replace broken releases with new packages using the same version numbers is a non-argument as far as I'm concerned. The software authors I've talked to in these cases are pretty much always easily convinced that those are troublesome behaviors (once it's pointed out) and readily adjust their release processes to a more user-friendly end result. If there are a few who are so completely insistent on continuing in this manner the projects I work on will not use them (for our own sanity), and if pip and PyPI implement assurances against these which have a side effect of driving *those particular* development teams off of the community packaging channel then that can only be a positive net effect in my opinion. -- Jeremy Stanley _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig