On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 March 2012 19:04, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: >>> Please can we have a new format that only has a Python version in the >>> filename if it matters? >> >> isn't that supposed to be the source release ? > > Yes, basically - at least as far as I understand. > >> Why would someone create a binary release when >> it's pure Python ? > > I wish I knew. But people do - mostly egg format files. But I think > this is partly because of the confusion between > egg-as-distribution-format vs egg-as-directly-usable-object that PJE > alludes to in his emails.
I sometimes create platform-independent eggs to indicate a Python-version dependency. Until d2/p, there was no other way to indicate dependence on a particular Python version. Note that the terminology is confusing. I think eggs are defined to be a "binary" distribution format, so eggs containing C extensions are referred to as "platform-specific". You raise a good point about how to deal with optional extensions. There's no meta data to indicate whether there are optional extensions that might guide an automated installer. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
