On 11 February 2016 at 13:48, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 08:12, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> It's not impossible to migrate to something else, but it's impractical to >> migrate to dozens of something elses. Right now, if we can count on PyPI >> having the source in an easily consumable lowest common denominator format, >> the friction of providing those packages to *our* end users, and updating >> them >> in a timely manner, is often minimal. Changing that ecosystem upstream of >> us, >> either deliberately or otherwise, will likely result in more out of date >> packages in the distros. > > One of my own overarching goals in all this is to help facilitate > utilities like pyp2rpm and py2dsc
Hmm, I got the py2dsc reference from https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Packaging but the newer https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide doesn't appear to mention any particular way of generating the initial packaging skeleton from the upstream project. Anyway, the core point is wanting to ensure we can automate not only "direct to binary" installation with Python specific tools, but also the "convert to alternate source archive format and build from there" workflows needed by redistributor ecosystems like Linux distros, conda, Canopy, PyPM, Nix, etc. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
