-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2011 5:14 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 02:04 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>> In article
>> <cacac1f-cmbkryagzrcawdndm7-vn4yjo99fbd9vvccmbhcv...@mail.gmail.com>,
>
>>
>
> Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to reopen the discussions on how the new packaging
>>> module will handle/support binary distributions in Python 3.3.
>>> The previous thread (see
>>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113956.html)
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
included a lot of good information and discussion, but ultimately
>>> didn't reach any firm conclusions.
>>>
>>> First question - is this a Windows only problem, or do
>>> Unix/MacOS users want binary support? My feeling is that it's
>>> not an issue for them, at least not enough that anyone has
>>> done anything about it in the past, so I'll focus on Windows
>>> here.
>
>> I haven't been following this discussion that closely but I'm
>> rather surprised that the need for binary distributions for
>> Python packages on non-Windows platforms would be in question.
>> Just as on Windows, it's not a given that all Unix or Mac OS X
>> end-user systems will have the necessary development tools
>> installed (C compiler, etc) to build C extension modules. Today,
>> the most platform-independent way of distributing these are with
>> binary eggs: the individual binary eggs are, of course, not
>> platform-independent but the distribution and installation
>> mechanism is or should be. Sure, there are other ways, like
>> pushing the problem back to the OS distributor (e.g. Debian, Red
>> Hat, et al) or, as in the case of Mac OS X where there isn't a
>> system package manager in the same sense, to a third-party
>> package distributor (like MacPorts, Homebrew, or Fink). Or you
>> can produce platform-specific installers for each platform which
>> also seems heavy-weight.
I don't pushing it back to the OS vendor solves the problem. Say I
want to install these binary packages with buildout: How would it go
about consuming an RPM to install in an isolated buildout directory?
>> Has anyone analyzed the current packages on PyPI to see how many
>> provide binary distributions and in what format?
>
> Practically speaking, nobody but Windows consumers *needs* binary
> packages on PyPI: even if the target ("production") box is
> crippled^Wstripped of its compiler, such environments always have
> "staging" hosts which can be used to build binary packages for
> internal distribution.
It might be true that such systems don't need binary packages on PyPI,
but the original question is about binary package support for the
packaging module on non-Windows systems. I think the answer is clearly
"yes": I have such systems without compilers. If I build packages on a
staging server, I would want to put them on an internal PyPI-like
server, for consumption by packaging. So packaging would need to
consume these binary packages.
Eric.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOrnFiAAoJENxauZFcKtNxLG0H/03d0uRXw/MvlCA9q92OlwWk
+X2PqpZ/F5aFBuN3lsichr/qLiHm69tNu3K++JyLXypT7hzbiB8QEbVUn5Z8X2ds
is/6wKIX5Hmd//UlX+VtlYZQSXd/1k7FbqFY0CPTRFGrE+I9ipfCnO3h1OiBwHpY
eejoR4Lr/6MXZ+v7DdlyRC9mWZV/uNKnR0ec5ABbQIEC13/j91gR/57ua/ryhRmT
hco4ssRSP9pqO058aVJ1ivw2q+9364f7DgWynafRjkrcTy80gZ90LTz7WtteeFPr
QO2yFW8ZI0UsxUxNRsDBj1N91AVHngU6HJa1evgegUPRjl94neSQLLWLla37qfQ=
=2b7E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
