On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I object to the mandatory nature of the proposal and the associated be sure > to document for your users why you were idiots and didn't ship this. End > users should not need these kinds of tools.
I agree. > I think that introducing a package download mechanism that is not > cryptographically secured with a promise to later insecurely update the > mechanism to have security is crazy talk. I also agree. > The basic message I get from the proposal is "screw you Linux". I think it's a bit more subtle than that - but I do think most Pythonistas tend to forget that end users may not know what pip is - hell, they may not even know what Python is. I think clarifying this upstream would be nice. > Scott K > > P.S. I'm not nominating myself to be the diplomat that talks to upstream for > what are probably obvious reasons. Samesies. On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I get why they exist. I was talking to the people who were advocating for the removal of pip from the archive, not you, Scott :) Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
