On 29 Sep 2014 22:09, "Wichert Akkerman" <wichert@wiggy.net> wrote:
>
> On 29 Sep 2014, at 13:58, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Right, this is my perspective as well. The point that the wheel format already includes a build ordering field was significant because that file naming scheme has an official specification.
>>
>> Other commands like bdist_egg, bdist_dumb and bdist_wininst aren't as strict about the expected file names, although it would be good to define a suggested optional build numbering convention at least for bdist_egg, such that easy_install will do the right thing, even if the full source level version number isn't bumped.
>
> This is just as relevant for sdists as well. It is quite common to see a broken release due to a missing or wrong MANIFEST.in.

As Donald noted, if the source package contents change, the public version should really change, with all binary artefacts being updated accordingly.

I didn't make that clear though - it was an unstated assumption.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> Wichert.