RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 15 10:57:08 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114091.html

On 15 October 2011 09:04, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish I felt more comfortable with MSI as a format (as opposed to an
>> opaque clickable installer). I'd be interested to know what others
>> think.
>
> Compilation can be a problem on Linux systems as well, so a platform
> neutral format is a better idea. Just have a mechanism that allows
> pysetup to create a bdist_msi from a bdist_simple. Similar, bdist_rpm
> and bdist_deb plugins could be taught to interpret bdist_simple.
>
> However, you do get into architecture problems (x86 vs x86_64 vs ARM)
> if you go that route.

Architecture problems are an issue for any binary format, surely? It's
the content (the binaries themselves) that are architecture dependent,
not the format itself.

Paul.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114091.html below:

[Python-Dev] Packaging and binary distributions for Python 3.3