nad@acm.org> wrote:
> Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many provide
> binary distributions and in what format?

A very quick and dirty check:

dmg: 5
rpm: 12
msi: 23
dumb: 132
wininst: 364
egg: 2570

That's number of packages with binary distributions in that format.
It's hard to be sure about egg distributions, as many of these could
be pure-python (there's no way I know, from the PyPI metadata, to
check this).

FYI, the egg filename will contain a distutils platform identifier (e.g. 'win32', 'macosx', 'linux', etc.) �after the 'py2.x' tag if the egg is platform-specific. �Otherwise, it's pure Python.
">

(original) (raw)

Urgh. �I guess that was already answered. �Guess this'll teach me not to reply to a thread before waiting for ALL the messages to download over a low-bandwidth connection... �(am on the road at the moment and catching up on stuff in spare cycles - sorry for the noise)


On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:24 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 October 2011 18:04, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
> Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many provide
> binary distributions and in what format?

A very quick and dirty check:

dmg: 5
rpm: 12
msi: 23
dumb: 132
wininst: 364
egg: 2570

That's number of packages with binary distributions in that format.
It's hard to be sure about egg distributions, as many of these could
be pure-python (there's no way I know, from the PyPI metadata, to
check this).

FYI, the egg filename will contain a distutils platform identifier (e.g. 'win32', 'macosx', 'linux', etc.) �after the 'py2.x' tag if the egg is platform-specific. �Otherwise, it's pure Python.