On 2/13/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm actually opposed to bdist_egg, from a conceptual point of view. > I think it is wrong if Python creates its own packaging format > (just as it was wrong that Java created jar files - but they are > without deployment procedures even today).
I think Jars are a lower-level thing than what we're talking about here; they're no different than shared libraries, and for an architecture that has its own bytecode and toolchain it only makes sense to invent its own cross-platform shared library format (especially given the "deploy anywhere" slogan). > The burden should be > on developer's side, for creating packages for the various systems, > not on the users side, when each software comes with its own > deployment infrastructure. Well, just like Java, if you have pure Python code, why should a developer have to duplicate the busy-work of creating distributions for different platforms? (Especially since there are so many different target platforms -- RPM, .deb, Windows, MSI, Mac, fink, and what have you -- I'm no expert but ISTM there are too many!) > OTOH, users are fond of eggs, for reasons that I haven't yet > understood. I'm neutral on them; to be honest I don't even understand the difference between eggs and setuptools yet. :-) I imagine that users don't particularly care about eggs, but do care about the ease of use of the tools around them, i.e. ez_setup. > From a release management point of view, I would still like to > make another bdist_msi release before contributing it to Python. Please go ahead. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
