[Distutils] Fwd: Adding a "Pure Python" flag to PyPI
donald.stufft at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 22:58:01 CET 2012
I'm +1 for this, and for packaging to do it automatically.
On Monday, March 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de (mailto:martin at v.loewis.de)> wrote:
> > > I can't see a way of reliably establishing whether a distribution is
> > > "pure Python", and yet distutils/packaging clearly has that
> > > information available when building. Would it be worthwhile adding a
> > > "pure Python" flag to the PyPI classifiers, which could be
> > > automatically populated by packaging? We'd still be reliant on people
> > > who manually maintain metadata getting it correct, but it would help
> > > in many cases (and in particular, in those cases where projects do
> > > regularly upload binary distributions).
> > >
> > I don't think it's worthwhile. It would take forever (literally decades)
> > for this to get into wide use, unless some tool enforces it (e.g. PyPI
> > refuses the upload if there is a C file in the source tarball, yet the
> > package is not marked pure C).
> distutils/2/packaging should be able to set this automatically.
> If we do this, maybe the possible values should be yes, no, and don't know.
> > > Alternatively, if there is a way of reliably identifying those
> > > packages that can't be installed from source by someone without a
> > > compiler, I'd be interested to know.
> > >
> > Depends on how reliable you want it. Whatever mechanism someone can
> > propose, I can find a way to cheat that mechanism.
> I don't think anyone has a motive to cheat, unless their goal
> if to be branded a cheater. :) After all, as you point out,
> if they cheat, they'll be found out pretty quickly.
> Jim Fulton
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org (mailto:Distutils-SIG at python.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG