On 11 July 2017 at 00:58, C Anthony Risinger <c...@anthonyrisinger.com> wrote: > When preparing a redistributable archive, we don't want people to first > generate difficult or inconvenient artifacts? I always thought that was a > major feature of an archive, to reduce the content down to common > denominators for verification, reproducibility, and build simplicity, at the > expense of not being fully representative of the original build capabilities > and likely an irreversible step.
My apologies folks, this is an entirely irrelevant tangent brought on by my attempting to explain my own preference that source archives (including sdists) actually *be* source archives, containing solely the original software is *its preferred form for modification*. However, that's a free software, and commercial redistributor centric point of view, where we aren't particularly keen on anyone publishing open source software without also properly declaring all the things that redistributors and end users will need in order to actually modify that software. It's neither enforced nor required by PEP 517, it's just part of my *own* rationale for wanting to see "build directory" kept purely as a wheel building concept, rather than something we define for sdists as well. If some projects *do* decide to put a lot of generated platform independent artifacts in their sdists, those of us that care always have the option of bypassing them and going straight to raw VCS clones and tarballs, just as we already ignore wheel files and retrieve sdists from PyPI instead. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
