Bob Ippolito wrote: >> 'There are several binary formats that embody eggs, but the most common >> is '.egg' zipfile format, because it's a convenient one for distributing >> projects.' >> >> '.egg files are a "zero installation" format for a Python package;' > > single modules are also such a "zero installation" format too. So what? > > You're simply reading things between the lines that aren't there. How > about you describe exactly what parts of the documentation that lead you > to believe that eggs are designed to compete with solutions like > rpm/msi/deb so that it can be clarified?
It's not just the documentation: I firmly believe that many people consider .egg files to be a distribution and package management format. People have commented that some systems (e.g. OSX) doesn't have a usable native packager, so setuptools fills a need here. This shows that people do believe that .egg files are to OSX what .deb files are to Debian. As .egg files work on Debian, too, it is natural that they compete with .deb. Phillip Eby once said (IIRC) that he doesn't want package authors to learn all the different bdist_* commands (which also require access to the target systems sometimes), and that they their life gets easier as they now only have to ship the "native" Python binary packages, namely .egg files. In this view, rpm/msi/deb have no place anymore, and are obsolete. I can readily believe that package authors indeed see this as a simplification, but I also see an increased burden on system admins in return. So if this attitude (Python Eggs are the preferred binary distribution format) is wrong, it is the attitude that has to change first. Changes to the documentation follow from that. If the attitude is right, I'll have to accept that I have a minority opinion. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
