On Aug 22, 2016, at 09:14 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >In that case, perhaps the way to go for sdists (at least for now) >would be to continue allowing both .tar.gz and .zip, but disallow >uploading both of them for any given release?
I'd prefer allowing uploading of both formats for now, with mild encouragement to at least include zips. I'm fairly certain the Debian Python ecosystem in general can consume zip sdists without problem, although there may be some individual packages that need some adjustment. I don't have any sense of large an impact it would be to switch sdists from tar.gz to zip, but allowing for some overlap with "gentle nudges" toward the preferred format would allow us to do the analysis and give us some time to plan a transition. Personally, I don't much care if the sdist format is tar.gz or zip, and it does make sense to promote one archive format for both source and binary distributions. I mildly prefer tar.gz but for pretty shallow reasons (i.e. not good enough :): one tool to rule them all (tar(1) both packs and unpacks, while zip needs two commands), and I've been using tar for way longer than zip so I'm a little more comfortable with it. What I'd want most of all is a clearly documented transition plan, i.e. a PEP that I can point other people to and say "we need to make sure all our tooling is in place by date X because that's when .tar.gz is going away". Cheers, -Barry
pgpM_wi_53rBa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
