I don't think we are defining a new file type today. On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:03 PM Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 20, 2016, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 12:53 Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> > >>> >>> Oh, and TIL that anyone who has Python 3.4+ installed has a command line >>> tool for extracting ``.tar.gz`` files [2] >>> >> >> 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. >> > > How about, as a convention, > .sdist.zip > .sdist.tar.gz > > So that file type associations with archive programs still work? > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
