[Distutils] Are there any plans to move to pip/wheels in buildout?

Jim Fulton jim at zope.com
Wed Dec 3 16:30:26 CET 2014

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 December 2014 at 14:47, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
>>> Am I missing something about binary support with wheels?
>> I don't think so.
> Agreed.
> It seems to me that the key issue currently is that for binary
> distribution, pip only supports wheels, whereas buildout only supports
> eggs.

(And .exe)

> There are other tools which also tend to only support one or the
> other (e.g., easy_install -> egg, distil -> wheel) but I think they
> are the minority. I don't know relative popularity between pip and
> buildout - I suspect it depends on the community involved.
> For a project, decisions on which binary formats to provide probably
> need to be based on the expected numbers of users of each tool.
> The wheel and egg formats are similar enough to allow auto-conversion
> (wheel convert does egg->wheel, I don't know if there's a tool to do
> wheel->egg, but it wouldn't be hard to write) but expecting users to
> maintain local converted repositories is a burden in itself, so the
> question remains what binaries to upload to PyPI.

For now, it would be humane to upload both wheel and egg. :)

We're happy to move buildout to using wheel.  It will make me
very sad if we have to do that by invoking pip as a subprocess,
but I'll cope if I have to.

I think the next step is for me to enumerate buildout's packaging api
requirements and desires. I'll try to get that done this weekend.
(I'll need to spend some time refreshing my memory on some things.)


Jim Fulton

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list