[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions

[Vinay Sajip]

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

> Agreed - the "one size fits all" data location is a limitation. I'm
> not sure that in practical terms it is a big issue, though - it's been
> like that since the wininst format was designed, and nobody has ever
> complained. There are certainly cases where packages have needed to
> implement more or less clumsy workarounds (for example, not including
> documentation in binary distributions) but it's obviously never been
> enough of an issue to prompt people to fix it. The egg format has the
> same limitation, as far as I'm aware, so clearly even the "eggs solve
> everything" crowd don't feel it's a real issue 

Yes, but with setup.py you had the option of running any Python code to move
things around using a post-install script, so people could get around those
limitations, albeit in a completely ad hoc way. So there was nothing to fix, but
no standard way of achieving what you wanted in out-of-the-ordinary scenarios.

> I'd love to see a binary format that was as flexible and powerful as
> building from source, which allowed OS integration where the user
> wanted it while still supporting venvs and non-system installations,
> and which was widely adopted by distribution authors. Oh, and can I
> have a pony?  Sadly, I don't have the time or understanding of the
> various requirements to deliver something like that.

Well, from the point of view of venvs and PEP 404, it's certainly topical and
worth trying to get some traction behind this particular pony. If bdist_pony is
easy enough to use and doesn't close any existing doors, then there's no obvious
reason why distribution authors wouldn't use it for future releases of their
distributions.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip