Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I do think that it's relevant that the respective operating system
packagers don't find bdist_rpm, bdist_deb, et. al. useful. It's not
very useful to have a bdist_deb that nobody actually builds debs with.
I think that conclusion is invalid: just because the distributions don't
use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it. As a data point, there are 16
packages on PyPI that release RPMs (I haven't checked how
they actually built them, though).
And I personally use bdist_rpm for my work, which I distribute to a farm
of servers under my control. So no doubt it's used.
In fact, .deb is a proof that it does *not* help to have the package
commands outside distutils. For .deb, the command actually *is* outside
distutils (there is no bdist_deb in distutils) - and it hasn't helped.
It proves that it doesn't help given the current state of affairs. I
suspect that if all of this additional information needed to build a
.deb (for example) could be included as metadata in the python package
(using the word "package" loosely), that it would be. It would make the
ultimate packager's life easier, and it's no real burden for the
original author.
_______________________________________________
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
