On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As regards the format, bdist_dumb is about the right level - but > having just checked it has some problems (which if I recall, have been > known for some time, and are why bdist_dumb doesn't get used). > Specifically, bdist_dumb puts the location of site-packages ON THE > BUILD SYSTEM into the archive, making it useless for direct unzipping > on a target system which has Python installed somewhere else. > I don't know about the case for packaging/distutils2, but I know that in original distutils, you can work around this by making bdist_dumb call the install commands with different arguments. That is, it's a relatively shallow flaw in bdist_dumb. bdist_wininst, for example, is basically a zipped bdist_dumb with altered install arguments and an .exe header tacked on the front. (Along with a little extra data crammed in between the two.)
_______________________________________________ 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
