[Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging

PJ Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Mar 14 20:16:51 CET 2012

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 March 2012 16:58, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Right.  It is only a replacement for use of eggs as a binary
> distribution
> >> (not installation) format.
> >
> >
> > Or to put it another way, it won't be a replacement for eggs at all.
>  It'll
> > be a replacement for bdist_wininst.
> That is certainly my understanding. Do we need a replacement for eggs?

Nope.  My only concern is that unless this is made really clear, people are
likely to think this *is* intended to replace eggs, confusing
eggs-in-general with eggs-as-improved-bdist_dumb/wininst.

Other than that, replacing bdist_dumb and bdist_wininst with something more
sane has my +1.  (I just want it clearly labeled as such, since all the
discussion about possibly using the egg format may confuse the unwary.)

If I understand correctly, all this proposal does is update bdist_dumb to
use a saner naming convention, standardize on zip format, and flatten the
inner directory layout.  A sort of "bdist_dumb2", if you will.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20120314/ee491039/attachment.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list