On 29 Sep 2014 21:20, "holger krekel" <holger@merlinux.eu> wrote:
>
> (Fixed quoting indent + some own comments)
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:04 +0000, Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com<mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> It's the silent substitution of file contents I have a fundamental
> >> problem with, not the notion of being able to publish an updated
> >> platform specific build artefact without having to bump the source
> >> release version.
> >
> > Wheel files already include the idea of a build number baked into the filename. That would be
> > a different filename and thus would be allowed to be uploaded even if you deleted the original
> > Wheel. Is there something about that which wouldn’t work or did it just slip your mind?
>
> FWIW I'd prefer to go with the "each filename maps to one binary content
> or was deleted" guarantee irrespective if it's a wheel, tar,
> egg or zip file.  Besides, the cited mirroring/distribution simplifications
> wouldn't otherwise materialize i guess.

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.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> holger
>
>  ---
> > Donald Stufft
> > PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>