I think adding a yanked flag is a good approach when it comes to PyPI. It is how packages are "deleted" from that index anyway, and package managers do have to deal with that on a regular basis. I'm happy to give that a try on our end.

I think purely for the "let's not show the users packages newer than x days", newer packages could also be entirely omitted. This should not break anything if it was applied this way:

• Stop showing packages newer than the moment the policy is enabled.
• Wait x amount of days.
• Start showing packages uploaded x days after the moment the policy was enabled.

Essentially ProGet would delay everything it pulls in from PyPI. Maybe that could be an option on the connector.

This doesn't work for "noncompliance" in general, and I don't know how well it translates to other package indices.

I think adding a yanked flag is a good approach when it comes to PyPI. It is how packages are "deleted" from that index anyway, and package managers do have to deal with that on a regular basis. I'm happy to give that a try on our end.

I think purely for the "let's not show the users packages newer than x days", newer packages could also be entirely omitted. This should not break anything if it was applied this way:

• Stop showing packages newer than the moment the policy is enabled.
• Wait x amount of days.
• Start showing packages uploaded x days after the moment the policy was enabled.

Essentially ProGet would delay everything it pulls in from PyPI. Maybe that could be an option on the connector.

This doesn't work for "noncompliance" in general, and I don't know how well it translates to other package indices.

I stumbled upon this when trying to upload a deb package for vector:
https://github.com/vectordotdev/vector/releases

All of their releases seem to behave that way and the fix is indeed to repackage them. I'm fine doing that, but I thought you might like a package with which you can easily reproduce this behavior. Maybe ProGet could be a bit more lenient with the tar files it accepts, or maybe it's actually a bug.

Great, thank you!

This has been answered before, but it's been a while, so I wanted to make sure this is still the case:

Can we install a new server, use the single enterprise license we have on both servers for a week, then decommission the old server?

See previously answered question:

Re: Can we transfer a license from one server to another?