On 12 June 2017 at 21:57, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > There is a certain appeal to using the zipped .whl file as the canonical > format for all tools that produce or consume wheels, rather than defining a > closely related but distinct 'unpacked wheel' format. A directory and a zip > file do not have 100% identical features (filename encodings may differ, > entries in a zip file are ordered, there may be metadata in one format > that's not present in the other, and so on).
This is a reasonable point. As I understand it, zipfiles are guaranteed to support the full Unicode range for filenames, via UTF-8. But it's not impossible for filesystems to only support a limited subset (for example, I believe the encoding used for FAT32 filesystems is not clearly defined, but is probably some 8-bit codepage, and Unix systems rely on whatever encoding the user has specified via the locale settings). I can't offhand imagine a practical situation where the filesystem encoding of the build system would cause wheel generation to fail, but would work for the rest of the build chain - but on the other hand, this whole question is pretty borderline in any case, as far as I can tell, so I'm somewhat inclined to go for using the format that *doesn't* have potential encoding issues built in (I'm pretty sick of dealing with encoding issues with pip...) But honestly, I think we're at the point where someone just needs to make a decision - there's very little compelling evidence either way. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
