Re: CHEESESHOP or GH

Einar Bjarni Halldórsson wrote:
> So, we can either continue fetching the dist from PyPI and then have no 
> tests, or we can fetch from Github, including the tests.
> 
> The guidelines say:
> 
>> Examples where temporarily using an alternate MASTER_SITES is warranted:
>>
>>     Some files are not correctly packaged or included at all in the 
>> PyPI sdist, such as licenses, test suite files or data. Submit an 
>> upstream issue or PR in these cases.
>>     A source distribution (sdist) has not been uploaded yet
>> In these cases, issues or pull request SHOULD be created upstream to 
>> rectify the problem, and MASTER_SITES switched to CHEESESHOP when the 
>> change is released in a later version. 
> 
> 
> In this case, the upstream devs have flat out said they're not going to 
> include the tests. Is it better to switch MASTER_SITE to github and run 
> the tests or stay with PyPI and skip the tests?
> 
> .einar
> 
> [1] https://github.com/proxmoxer/proxmoxer/issues/126
> 
I commented. This guideline isn't specific to python@ per se, but 
something that applies to all ports: proper release distributions 
(usually source tarballs) are preferred over source code management tags.

For this port, you can go either way, but if you choose to fetch from 
GitHub, make sure to add a comment in the Makefile explaining the 
situation (and maybe reference the upstream issue).

It's unfortunate when individual projects choose to disregard proper 
release engineering practices. Part of our job as port maintainers is to 
serve as that check-and-balance such that if projects want their stuff 
in software repositories, they have to put some consideration as well.

-- 
Charlie Li
…nope, still don't have an exit line.