On 6/5/20 2:22 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 2020-06-05 13:58, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> On 6/5/20 1:43 PM, Miro HronĨok wrote:
>> On 05. 06. 20 11:51, Tomas Orsava wrote:
[...]
>
>
> I see what you mean.
> On the other hand, that's a pretty horrible error message format
> (posting in it's entirety for others to consider).
>
> Is there no better way to achieve this? For a few packages it's ok,
> but I would be weary of introducing this to too many packages.
>
> In the proposal there's talk of blocking the name on PyPI. Is this
> the way the blocking will be achieved?
You can talk to PyPI admins to block packages.
But all in all, I think what "fedora", "ldap" or "microsoft are
doing
is the best option right now.
I started some discussion upstream, if you want to read it:
https://discuss.python.org/t/pypi-as-a-project-repository-vs-name-registr...
(But let's discuss Fedora issues here first.)
Ah, that's sad. Thanks for raising the topic upstream, hopefully it'll
improve down the road.
As fer Fedora: Do I understand it correctly that:
- the names of Python packages in Fedora have been now blocked on PyPI
using the admin intervention, and
- we want to advise people to get those names on PyPI and either publish
the projects there or do this fedora/ldap-sort of namesquatting?
I agree it's the least-worst option now. However, it will need a
detailed instructions.