eggs considered harmful

[Harry George]

jjl at pobox.com (John J. Lee) writes:

> Harry George <harry.g.george at boeing.com> writes:
> [...]
> > These are unacceptable behaviors.  I am therefore dropping ZODB3, and
> > am considering dropping TurboGears and ZSI.  If the egg paradigm
> > spreads, yet more packages will be dropped (or will never get a chance
> > to compete for addition).
> > 
> > I've asked before, and I'll ask again: If you are doing a Python
> > project, please make a self-sufficient tarball available as well.  You
> > can have dependencies, as long as they are documented and can be
> > obtained by separate manual download. 
> 
> 1. Given the presumptuous tone of your own message, I guess I'm not in
> danger of coming across as more rude than you when I point out that
> your requirements are just that: your own.  The rest of the world
> won't *always* bend over backwards to support just exactly what you'd
> most prefer.
> 

You deleted the "...at least here", which was intended to make clear I
was NOT speaking for the world at large, though possibly for a large
chunk of corporate life.  Also, this wasn't out of the lbue.  I ha ve
previously discussed this with several development teasm privately,
but the trend appears to be accelerating

> 2. You can run your own private egg repository.  IIRC, it's as simple
> as a directory of eggs and a plain old web server with directory
> listings turned on.  You then run easy_install -f URL package_name
> instead of easy_install package_name .  The distutils-sig archives
> will have more on this.

Again, not speaking for anyone else: With 500 OSS packages, all of
which play by the same tarball rules, we don't have resources to
handle eggs differently.

> 
> 3. Alternatively, you could create bundled packages that include
> dependencies (perhaps zc.buildout can do that for you, even? not sure)
> 

No resources for special handling.  

> 
> John




-- 
Harry George
PLM Engineering Architecture