[Catalog-sig] [Proposal] Registered packages must provide the source code distribution on PyPI
tseaver at palladion.com
Thu Jun 17 14:22:54 CEST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> And lastly, uploading packages to PyPI (still) has a serious
> problem: setuptools doesn't know the distinction between
> UCS2 and UCS4, so uploading eggs for Unix platforms doesn't
> work out in practice. setuptools also doesn't know that
> e.g. a Mac OS X fat release may still contain the right binaries
> for a non-fat build of Python.
Uploading any 'bdist_egg' build is basically a losing proposition.
Windows may be the exception, except that at least a vocal segment of
Windows PyPI users prefer 'bdist_wininst' distributions, which can also
be consumed by setuptools / distribute.
Note however that Andreas' proposal was to require that 'sdists' be
uploaded. I personally won't use binary-only packages, but it has
historically been true that PyPI was intended to support them, as well
as to support registration of packages hosted offsite. Andreas'
proposal doesn't address either of those cases.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Catalog-SIG