On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> the point here is that end users should be able to:
>
> pip install something
>
> and if there is a binary wheel for something, it should work without them
> having to install something else. (why MS doesn't ship ALL their runtimes
> with eh OS is beyond me...)
Agreed with that, but meh.
> As it stands now, there are two options:
>
> 1) users need to install something else themselves: the runtime, that
> particular dll, the compiler...
> 2) every package maintainer that uses C++ needs to ship that dll with the
> binary wheels.
>
> If we put the dll into the python binary, then it would "just work"
Counting your conclusion as option 3, you're offering the status quo
and two competing solutions to it. I agree that the status quo is
unideal; a binary wheel should either include or be able to fetch
everything necessary for a supported platform. But why should CPython
package a runtime that it doesn't use? Which is more common - someone
uses two C++ modules, or someone uses none of them?
I don't know how hard it is for the wheels to ship the DLL ("hard"
here including any licensing or versioning issues, as well as the
actual effort involved), but from a purely logical standpoint, it
seems the most sane option. So I'm in favour of your option 2.
ChrisA
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
