[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions

[Ned Deily]

In article 
<CACac1F-cmbKryaGZrCawDNdM7-VN4Yjo99fbD9VVcCmbhcvutA at mail.gmail.com>,
 Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to reopen the discussions on how the new packaging module
> will handle/support binary distributions in Python 3.3. The previous
> thread (see 
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113956.html)
> included a lot of good information and discussion, but ultimately
> didn't reach any firm conclusions.
> 
> First question - is this a Windows only problem, or do Unix/MacOS
> users want binary support? My feeling is that it's not an issue for
> them, at least not enough that anyone has done anything about it in
> the past, so I'll focus on Windows here.

I haven't been following this discussion that closely but I'm rather 
surprised that the need for binary distributions for Python packages on 
non-Windows platforms would be in question.  Just as on Windows, it's 
not a given that all Unix or Mac OS X end-user systems will have the 
necessary development tools installed (C compiler, etc) to build C 
extension modules.  Today, the most platform-independent way of 
distributing these are with binary eggs: the individual binary eggs are, 
of course, not platform-independent but the distribution and 
installation mechanism is or should be.  Sure, there are other ways, 
like pushing the problem back to the OS distributor (e.g. Debian, Red 
Hat, et al) or, as in the case of Mac OS X where there isn't a system 
package manager in the same sense, to a third-party package distributor 
(like MacPorts, Homebrew, or Fink).  Or you can produce 
platform-specific installers for each platform which also seems 
heavy-weight.

Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many provide 
binary distributions and in what format?

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad at acm.org