> > Aren't zipfiles used as el-cheapo installers on Windows? I've seen > > plenty of stuff that was distributed as a simple zipfile, with > > instructions "unpack <here>". > > Sure, but on Windows, you have bdist_wininst, which isn't any more > difficult to use, and far superior. People building distutils packages > for Windows appreciate the fancy-without-efforts installer (I'm one of > those people myself); I would never consider using bdist_dumb on > Windows. > > In fact, I thought it was meant for systems like Solaris, where the > native packaging is not supported. Of course, on Solaris, I would > expect to get a .tar.gz, not a .zip. > > So even though I do use binutils binary packages, I would not suffer > from losing bdist_dumb, and I can't imagine anybody who would. OK, but bdist_wininst feels fragile (especially when I see checkins of a pile of binary gunk each time something has changed). Zip files are a lowest common denominator. Why do you want to lose bdist_dumb? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4