[Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
jim at zope.com
Thu Mar 15 12:40:36 CET 2012
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé <tarek at ziade.org> wrote:
>>> Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the
>>> filename if it matters?
>> isn't that supposed to be the source release ?
> Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand.
>> Why would someone create a binary release when
>> it's pure Python ?
> I wish I knew. But people do - mostly egg format files. But I think
> this is partly because of the confusion between
> egg-as-distribution-format vs egg-as-directly-usable-object that PJE
> alludes to in his emails.
I sometimes create platform-independent eggs to indicate a Python-version
dependency. Until d2/p, there was no other way to indicate dependence
on a particular Python version.
Note that the terminology is confusing. I think eggs are defined
to be a "binary" distribution format, so eggs containing
C extensions are referred to as "platform-specific".
You raise a good point about how to deal with optional extensions.
There's no meta data to indicate whether there are optional extensions
that might guide an automated installer.
More information about the Distutils-SIG