[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3 (original) (raw)

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Oct 10 05:11:41 CEST 2011

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

As regards the format, bdistdumb is about the right level - but having just checked it has some problems (which if I recall, have been known for some time, and are why bdistdumb doesn't get used). Specifically, bdistdumb puts the location of site-packages ON THE BUILD SYSTEM into the archive, making it useless for direct unzipping on a target system which has Python installed somewhere else.

I don't know about the case for packaging/distutils2, but I know that in original distutils, you can work around this by making bdist_dumb call the install commands with different arguments. That is, it's a relatively shallow flaw in bdist_dumb.

bdist_wininst, for example, is basically a zipped bdist_dumb with altered install arguments and an .exe header tacked on the front. (Along with a little extra data crammed in between the two.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20111009/87f3ae67/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list