On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 09:37:53AM -0800, Brian Cameron wrote: > So, I think we should safely recommend that modules which ship egg files > should not remove them.
Gosh, they're a bit forceful. > So, Danek, does this address your concerns? If so, I think I will go > ahead and mark the case approved since this is the only outstanding > issue. It does, but it'd be really useful, now that egg files are going to be expected for (at least some) Python projects to have some Solaris-specific rules surrounding their inclusion. That probably would amount to "include them, if provided", but also an answer to whether Sun-written Python projects should be done as eggs as well as a good example of what the actual egg interfaces are -- what of this stuff should people list in their interface tables if they're delivering eggs? The files / pathnames themselves are almost certainly not the right answer, since they're not consumed directly, but whatever metadata is. Running a (quick) full case with an opinion to set precedent would have been the old way of doing this, but perhaps a fast-track would be sufficient these days? Danek
