[Catalog-sig] ANN: pythonpackages.com beta

[Eric P. Mangold]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:19:52PM -0400, Alex Clark wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On 8/1/12 2:09 PM, Eric P. Mangold wrote:
> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>Debian et. all solve this with signed packages. I would be happy to download
> >>>Debian packages from http://pythonpackages.com all day long :)
> >>
> >>
> >>That's good to know, and probably I direction I'd like to head in.
> >>To be clear: I want to do any-useful-thing-I-can (within the
> >>ballpark) in order to start alleviating pain points for folks today.
> >
> >Cool,
> >
> >Well one thing would be to make all of your source code open-source, if that is not already the case(?)
> >
> >I can imagine wanting to run some pythonpackaging.com infrastructure outside of pythonpackages.com
> 
> 
> I <3 open source and it could happen, but it hasn't yet (for various
> reasons). I have a FAQ about it here:
> 
> - http://docs.pythonpackages.com/en/latest/faq.html#is-pythonpackages-com-open-source
 
Well since you're a commercial service I can understand your reluctance. :)
 
> >>>Debian also rely upon trusted build machines. But they are a more-or-less open
> >>>organization with open review of what goes on.
> >>>
> >>>That said, I don't have a problem with people placing their trust in you. I don't
> >>>know you, and don't have any opinion on it to be honest. You're probably a good guy ;)
> >>>
> >>>I would suggest working toward BEING a better PyPI mirror. Build
> >>>the infrastructure necessary for people to publish python SOURCE packages,
> >>>as they are, to PyPI, to pythonpackages.com, etc. etc. There is a lot of value
> >>>to be added there.
> >>
> >>
> >>Actually I'm mostly relying on the crate.io project (Donald Stufft)
> >>for this. I don't want pythonpackages.com to be a PyPI mirror,
> >>because other people are already doing this. The only related
> >>feature I'm considering (because folks have asked for it) is private
> >>PyPIs (something like index.pythonpackages.com only persistent).
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Build tools to make python packaging easy. On your laptop. On the cloud. Wherever.
> >>>Open SOURCE is good like that.
> >>
> >>Indeed! Currently working on a Windows version of pythonpackages.com
> >>to build Windows binaries (currently it only builds on Ubuntu).
> >>
> >
> >The key point I was making was that SOURCE is good, because then it's not just "some cloud service"
> >that could be here today and gone tomorrow - It's actually something people can rely on moving
> >forward. (in addition to being a service you run).
> 
> 
> I don't disagree, but I'm also not convinced that it has to be that
> way to be successful.
> 

Well good luck with that. I think you should consider open-sourcing, and consider the on-prem market.
Given those two things, I could even imagine myself as a customer.

Cheers,
-E