[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions

[Eric V. Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/2011 5:14 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>> 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.

I don't pushing it back to the OS vendor solves the problem. Say I
want to install these binary packages with buildout: How would it go
about consuming an RPM to install in an isolated buildout directory?

>> Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many 
>> provide binary distributions and in what format?
> 
> Practically speaking, nobody but Windows consumers *needs* binary 
> packages on PyPI:  even if the target ("production") box is 
> crippled^Wstripped of its compiler, such environments always have 
> "staging" hosts which can be used to build binary packages for 
> internal distribution.


It might be true that such systems don't need binary packages on PyPI,
but the original question is about binary package support for the
packaging module on non-Windows systems. I think the answer is clearly
"yes": I have such systems without compilers. If I build packages on a
staging server, I would want to put them on an internal PyPI-like
server, for consumption by packaging. So packaging would need to
consume these binary packages.

Eric.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOrnFiAAoJENxauZFcKtNxLG0H/03d0uRXw/MvlCA9q92OlwWk
+X2PqpZ/F5aFBuN3lsichr/qLiHm69tNu3K++JyLXypT7hzbiB8QEbVUn5Z8X2ds
is/6wKIX5Hmd//UlX+VtlYZQSXd/1k7FbqFY0CPTRFGrE+I9ipfCnO3h1OiBwHpY
eejoR4Lr/6MXZ+v7DdlyRC9mWZV/uNKnR0ec5ABbQIEC13/j91gR/57ua/ryhRmT
hco4ssRSP9pqO058aVJ1ivw2q+9364f7DgWynafRjkrcTy80gZ90LTz7WtteeFPr
QO2yFW8ZI0UsxUxNRsDBj1N91AVHngU6HJa1evgegUPRjl94neSQLLWLla37qfQ=
=2b7E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----