Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Sun Oct 9 21:47:08 CEST 2011 
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:31 PM, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
...
>> What we can do however
>> is to see what bdist_egg does and define a new bdist command inspired by
>> it, but without zipping, pkg_resource calls, etc.
>
> Why?  If you just want a dumb bdist format, there's already bdist_dumb.
>  Conversely, if you want a smarter format, why reinvent wheels?

Just to make sure we're on the same page here.

PEP 376 provide the installation format for the 'future' --
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376/

Introducing back another *installation* format would be against the
goal we've initially had with PEP 376 :
have a single installation format all tools out there would support,
for the sake of standardization of interoperability. (and for
consumers in other communities)

So, while 'eggs' are interesting as plugins for a given application
(that was the initial use case right ?), please do not consider them
as an installation format for Python.

Now for a binary archive, that would get installed ala PEP 376, why
not ? I'd just be curious to have someone list the advantage of having
a project released that way besides the "importable as-is" feature.

Cheers
Tarek

-- 
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list