Packaging packages?

[Gordon McMillan]

Michael P. Reilly wrote:
> Gordon McMillan <gmcm at hypernet.com> wrote:

[some stuff about Installer & archives...]

> My first point was that mine is a native _or_ C implimentation
> (read/write compatibility).  Last summer you would only make the
> docs and a win32 installer available (I even asked and just got
> that info), so I just had the docs to go on; you still only
> mention Windows and Linux.  My second point that your format
> implimentation in CArchive was more usable than mine.

Um, I wasn't comparing or contrasting in any way. I was trying 
to counter some misperceptions, (in fact, I wasn't really 
replying to you - this has come up recently both on c.l.py and 
other venues). 

[Not sure why you say you just had the docs to go on - all 
source is and has always been included. It's true you need a 
Windows box for the self-extracting executable, but I can 
make tar.gz's too.]
 
> I didn't object to your module, or publish mine, last summer
> because I thought CArchive had potential, just not complete
> (considering I could only get design specs).  Mine was more akin
> to your ZlibArchive, which is also why I didn't mention mine last
> summer.
> 
> You concentrate too much on encapsulating everything into one
> file - archive, executable, etc.  As you say, this is only useful
> for Windows, useless for anything else.  Mine concentrated in
> encapsulating modules and packages into one or more "cans" to
> allow transparent loading (adding the filename to sys.path
> directly).  Different approaches.

And that's the other one (that gave rise to this thread). It's true 
that the announcements have emphasized "encapsulating 
everything", because it's the most oft repeated request is for a 
compiler-less freeze. But the lower levels are there, and have 
a documented API. I hadn't pushed them as cross-platform 
because Windows users kept me real busy with their bug 
reports / enhancement requests. In fact, I was saying "it 
*should be* cross platform" and only got around to verifying 
that it is a couple weeks ago.
 
I'm also lazy - I don't want to do 2 announcements. 
Unfortunately, people who aren't attracted by Win32 Installers 
don't read the announcements, and so miss out on the fact 
that there's a bunch of stuff they could potentially use.

> I do not care at all for imputil, but made my module compatable
> with it.

Get used to it ;-). It's going to be the basis for importing in 1.6.

Jim Ahlstrom also has an archive format; see
  ftp://ftp.interet.com/pub/pylib.html

I'm really not attached to one format over another; except that 
I see reaons for having 2 types (one strictly for .pyc's, another 
that can contain anything).

What I would like people to realize is that I've put considerable 
effort into generalizing the building of these things, to the point 
where, 99% of the time, you can create a simple config file, 
run Builder on it and out pops an archive.

- Gordon