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

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 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 bdistdumb.  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