Disputed status of #38219

[saraedum]

There has been disagreement on whether #38219 should be merged at some point.

It seems that @dimpase in particular seems to have doubts, let me quote from his messages (with the caveat that I am not sure whether he is referring to the specific PR or to the process or to the idea in generality.)

proper credits are due

I would like to know why you insist on a home-grown solution instead of something which is available.

@dimpase have these concerns been addressed? Could you clarify here what specific changes you would like to see in the PR?

[dimpase]

my concerns are not addressed, and therefore I have marked #38219 as "needs work".

[kwankyu]

What is the item? Please be explicit.

@mkoeppe

[kwankyu]

Copied from #38475 (comment):

1. the credits are not given

2. pip has functionality to deal with hashes for binary wheels, but the PR appears to do something else, and it looks as an unnecessary complexity being added

[NathanDunfield]

2. pip has functionality to deal with hashes for binary wheels, but the PR appears to do something else, and it looks as an unnecessary complexity being added

Per @mkoeppe's comment on sage-devel, he initially tried to use pip's requirements.txt functionality that I believe @dimpase is referring to here, but it turned out to be insufficient because it does not support multi-platform hashes.

For what it's worth, I don't see any way to enforce hashes on binary wheels that's simpler than what's in #38219.

[mkoeppe]

Pasechnik took to making a vague public accusation -- lacking concreteness and substantiation -- and doubling down on it in the most hostile way. This is in line of many recent public denunciations that he has been making.

It is not possible to discuss technical matters in such an abusive environment. Therefore I would strongly suggest to all to not engage in trying to interpret what Pasechnik's messages could possibly mean on a technical level.