On 29 Sep 2014, at 15:21, Donald Stufft
On September 29, 2014 at 8:54:26 AM, Wichert Akkerman (wichert@wiggy.net) wrote:
On 29 Sep 2014, at 13:58, Nick Coghlan
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.
Test them prior to uploading them.
You can make the exact same argument about binary distributions, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here? Mistakes are made everywhere - I’m just trying to point out that a packaging error is not unique to binary distributions. Wichert.