[adding in disutils-sig and leaving this message intact as that's where
it belongs]
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/10/20 Ian Bicking <[email protected]>:
FWIW, I don't think there's a real conflict here. My understanding is
that wininst installers can be treated as installable packages that
don't *have* to go through the system package manager, so they are
both installable system-wide and installable much like an egg or
tarball is (you can't drop the wininst installer into the path
directly like you can an egg, but that doesn't seem to be a
widely-held goal).
The conflict lies in the fact that I want the features that
bdist_wininst installers give me (integration with add/remove programs
and uninstallation) [1]. If every project offers a bdist_wininst
installer, I'm happy. But Chris isn't unless they provide his
preferred format (I'm not sure if Chris has a concrete suggestion, or
he's just speculating at the moment) as well.
Huh? I don't really care how packages are installed, provided they end
up in a consistent format on disk. I'm not sure how a bdist_wininst
installer is going to make sure a package's dependencies are met though...
I'm assuming (based on experience with eggs) that projects won't
routinely provide all possible formats. Hence my contention that a
single format is necessary.
Having multiple package management systems that consume that format is
fine by me. But easy_install can consume bdist_wininst installers, so
the evidence is that there's more needed for a single format to emerge
than has been done so far (otherwise why isn't bdist_wininst that
single format right now?)
Because not everyone runs on Windows?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
