On 21 August 2016 at 02:33, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 12:53 Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > So I think you're both right, but at different time scales. :) I think > Donald is right that the short-term time scale of "now" by suggesting we > just go with tar.gz since it has the numbers. But I think Leonardo's point > of general alignment with zip for packaging overall is good for the > "formally define sdist" time scale and we potentially introduce an .sdist > file extension.
I think tarballs are a better long term release archiving format at any time scale - they just assume you're going to untar them before trying to do anything useful with them, which is a reasonable workflow requirement to impose for sdists. While relatively few people actually need to work directly with tarballs in that context, that's just because they've faded into the background of various build systems that produce some other format (e.g. RPMs, deb archives, Docker container layers). By contrast, for Python's built formats like wheel and egg, it's useful to be able to easily access their contents *without* unpacking them first, so it makes sense to go with the format that's friendlier to that model (i.e. zip). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
