Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> I do think that it's relevant that the respective operating system >> packagers don't find bdist_rpm, bdist_deb, et. al. useful. It's not >> very useful to have a bdist_deb that nobody actually builds debs with. > > I think that conclusion is invalid: just because the distributions don't > use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it. As a data point, there are 16 > packages on PyPI that release RPMs (I haven't checked how > they actually built them, though). And I personally use bdist_rpm for my work, which I distribute to a farm of servers under my control. So no doubt it's used. > In fact, .deb is a proof that it does *not* help to have the package > commands outside distutils. For .deb, the command actually *is* outside > distutils (there is no bdist_deb in distutils) - and it hasn't helped. It proves that it doesn't help given the current state of affairs. I suspect that if all of this additional information needed to build a .deb (for example) could be included as metadata in the python package (using the word "package" loosely), that it would be. It would make the ultimate packager's life easier, and it's no real burden for the original author.
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