[Catalog-sig] [Distutils] packaging terminology confusion
david.lyon at preisshare.net
Tue Jan 12 02:44:49 CET 2010
Ben Finney writes:
>> Eliminate : CheesyComestible-1.2.3.zip CheesyComestible-1.2.3.exe
>> CheesyComestible-1.2.3.tar.gz CheesyComestible-1.2.3.bz2
>> Unneccessary and confusing.
> How are they unnecessary? There needs to be, at least, a difference
> between the source package and the binary package.
If you have a zip/archive file, you can put anything in it. No reason why
'everything' can't go in it.
A "L'Oeuf incredible" might include a Python 2.x and Python 3.x code set,
make code for linux, .pyd for windows.
It would be so un-confusing to have an egg like that.
> Further, you (IIRC)
> have been arguing for Windows executable installers, which are
> necessarily going to be different from either the source package or the
> binary package for non-Windows systems.
I don't like those. I'd prefer as a security issue thing to have a .egg
package, associated with python, that I can click on with my browser, and
download and install into python automatically.
> All of them *are* the package, at a particular version, in different
> and necessary forms.
It's just confusing that way. But I understand all the history.
We had divergence of all these package forms..
Now we need convergence to a new singular package form.
More information about the Catalog-SIG