RetroSearch Browse

Sun Oct 16 22:49:41 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114100.html

Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree that a platform-neutral format is a good idea, but there might be other
complications with binary formats, which I'm not sure we've considered. For
example, if we're just bundling self-contained C extensions which just link to
libc/msvcrt, that's one thing. But what if those extensions link to particular
versions of other libraries? Are those referenced binaries supposed to be
bundled in the archive, too? I don't know that the dependency language supported
by packaging extends to these kinds of dependencies on external, non-Python
components. If we leave it to the packager to include all relevant binary
dependencies, I'm not sure how satisfactory that'll be - possibly, not very.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/114100.html below:

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