[Distutils] RFC: Binary Distribution Format for distutils2/packaging
marius at pov.lt
Thu Mar 15 17:58:00 CET 2012
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 07:40:36AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> 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.
Except for Trove classifiers, of course:
'Programming Language :: Python',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 2',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.4',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.5',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.6',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 2.7',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 3',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.1',
'Programming Language :: Python :: 3.2',
Or do I misunderstand your requirements?
No proper program contains an indication which as an operator-applied
occurrence identifies an operator-defining occurrence which as an
indication-applied occurrence identifies an indication-defining occurrence
different from the one identified by the given indication as an
-- ALGOL 68 Report
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Distutils-SIG