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

Eric V. Smith eric at trueblade.com
Mon Oct 31 10:59:09 CET 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/2011 5:14 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:

On 10/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ned Deily wrote:

In article <CACac1F-cmbKryaGZrCawDNdM7-VN4Yjo99fbD9VVcCmbhcvutA at mail.gmail.com>,

Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: I'd like to reopen the discussions on how the new packaging module will handle/support binary distributions in Python 3.3. The previous thread (see http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113956.html)

included a lot of good information and discussion, but ultimately didn't reach any firm conclusions. First question - is this a Windows only problem, or do Unix/MacOS users want binary support? My feeling is that it's not an issue for them, at least not enough that anyone has done anything about it in the past, so I'll focus on Windows here. I haven't been following this discussion that closely but I'm rather surprised that the need for binary distributions for Python packages on non-Windows platforms would be in question. Just as on Windows, it's not a given that all Unix or Mac OS X end-user systems will have the necessary development tools installed (C compiler, etc) to build C extension modules. Today, the most platform-independent way of distributing these are with binary eggs: the individual binary eggs are, of course, not platform-independent but the distribution and installation mechanism is or should be. Sure, there are other ways, like pushing the problem back to the OS distributor (e.g. Debian, Red Hat, et al) or, as in the case of Mac OS X where there isn't a system package manager in the same sense, to a third-party package distributor (like MacPorts, Homebrew, or Fink). Or you can produce platform-specific installers for each platform which also seems heavy-weight.

I don't pushing it back to the OS vendor solves the problem. Say I want to install these binary packages with buildout: How would it go about consuming an RPM to install in an isolated buildout directory?

Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many provide binary distributions and in what format? Practically speaking, nobody but Windows consumers needs binary packages on PyPI: even if the target ("production") box is crippled^Wstripped of its compiler, such environments always have "staging" hosts which can be used to build binary packages for internal distribution.

It might be true that such systems don't need binary packages on PyPI, but the original question is about binary package support for the packaging module on non-Windows systems. I think the answer is clearly "yes": I have such systems without compilers. If I build packages on a staging server, I would want to put them on an internal PyPI-like server, for consumption by packaging. So packaging would need to consume these binary packages.

Eric. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOrnFiAAoJENxauZFcKtNxLG0H/03d0uRXw/MvlCA9q92OlwWk +X2PqpZ/F5aFBuN3lsichr/qLiHm69tNu3K++JyLXypT7hzbiB8QEbVUn5Z8X2ds is/6wKIX5Hmd//UlX+VtlYZQSXd/1k7FbqFY0CPTRFGrE+I9ipfCnO3h1OiBwHpY eejoR4Lr/6MXZ+v7DdlyRC9mWZV/uNKnR0ec5ABbQIEC13/j91gR/57ua/ryhRmT hco4ssRSP9pqO058aVJ1ivw2q+9364f7DgWynafRjkrcTy80gZ90LTz7WtteeFPr QO2yFW8ZI0UsxUxNRsDBj1N91AVHngU6HJa1evgegUPRjl94neSQLLWLla37qfQ= =2b7E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list