Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>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 ". > > > >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. Speaking of which -- I asked someone (can't remember who =) to check the source to that binary junk in the tree somewhere. Did that happen? (my cvs tree here is out of date and I'm getting timeouts from sf, or I'd check).
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