On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 16:58, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> wrote: > >> > >> Right. It is only a replacement for use of eggs as a binary > distribution > >> (not installation) format. > > > > > > Or to put it another way, it won't be a replacement for eggs at all. > It'll > > be a replacement for bdist_wininst. > > That is certainly my understanding. Do we need a replacement for eggs? > Nope. My only concern is that unless this is made really clear, people are likely to think this *is* intended to replace eggs, confusing eggs-in-general with eggs-as-improved-bdist_dumb/wininst. Other than that, replacing bdist_dumb and bdist_wininst with something more sane has my +1. (I just want it clearly labeled as such, since all the discussion about possibly using the egg format may confuse the unwary.) If I understand correctly, all this proposal does is update bdist_dumb to use a saner naming convention, standardize on zip format, and flatten the inner directory layout. A sort of "bdist_dumb2", if you will.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
