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

[Jim Fulton]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Marius Gedminas <marius at pov.lt> wrote:
> 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?

None of the tools use Trove classifiers to make decisions
about what to download afaik.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton