On 29 January 2014 13:41, Evgeny Sazhin <eugene@sazhin.us> wrote:
I have no knowledge about c extensions scope, but i feel like it might be of less importance then pure python packaging issues? Am I wrong?
Most interesting Python projects will end up with C dependencies through things like NumPy, SQL Alchemy, GUI toolkits, image libraries, etc. You can do a lot with pure Python and the standard library, but interfacing with C is the norm rather than the exception the way it is in Java.
I'd think wheel should do everything in its power to provide pain free workflow for pure python, and if there is a need to add some C extension then solve that problem separately? Is the possibility to add C extension into the wheel so critical, that it should prohibit useful feature for pure python modules?
The Python culture and the Java culture is very different in that regard - the JVM allows Java developers to almost completely ignore the C runtime on a system. CPython, by contrast, integrates with that C runtime directly, and this is then reflected in the ecosystem that has built up around it. So while there is some support for running without unpacking things to disk, we generally prefer approaches that work seamlessly with C extensions as well. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia