[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3

[Vinay Sajip]

Paul Moore <p.f.moore <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we standardised on a particular
> structure, the hooks.py contents could actually be integrated into the
> core, if we wanted? People could still write hooks for more complex
> cases, but the basic binary build case could work out of the box that
> way.

Well, the hooks.py is there to allow user-defined setups which are outside the
scope of what should be provided in the stdlib - for instance, my earlier
example about PowerShell scripts is IMO out-of-scope for the stdlib itself, but
perfectly fine for the documentation, say in a set of example recipes in a
packaging HOWTO. The hooks aren't needed at all for conventional deployments -
only when you need something out of the ordinary. We could certainly extend the
setup.cfg scheme to have specific support for pre-compiled binaries, which are
currently "out of the ordinary" (which of course is why this thread is here :-)).

Life could be made easier for distribution authors by initially
having well documented examples or recipes, and later, if the ubiquity of
certain patterns is established, better support might be provided in the
stdlib for those patterns. But there are other changes we could make now - for
example, the list of categories does not include a library location
(necessitating my use of a "compiled" category), but perhaps a "lib" category
could be built in now.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip