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

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Sun Oct 9 21:31:23 CEST 2011

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote:

After all, if setuptools and then pkgresources were turned down for inclusion in Python 2.5, it’s not now that we have packaging

that we’ll change our mind and just bless eggs.

Actually, that's not what happened. I withdrew the approved-by-Guido, announced-at-PyCon, and already-in-progress implementation, both because of the lack of package management features, and because of support concerns raised by Fredrik Lundh. (At that time, the EggFormats doc didn't exist, and there were not as many people familiar with the design or code as there are now.) For the full statement, see:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-April/064145.html

(The withdrawal is after a lot of background on the history of setuptools and what it was designed for.)

In any case, it definitely wasn't the case that eggs or setuptools were rejected for 2.5; they were withdrawn for reasons that didn't have anything to do with the format itself. (And, ironically enough, AFAIK the new packaging module uses code that's actually based on the bits of setuptools Fredrik was worried about supporting... but at least there now are more people providing that support.)

What we can do however

is to see what bdistegg does and define a new bdist command inspired by it, but without zipping, pkgresource 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? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20111009/bd83da53/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list