On 07:59 pm, fdr...@acm.org wrote:
I'm actually in favor of removing the bdist_* from the standard
library, and allowing 3rd-party tools to implement whatever they need
for the distros. But I don't think what you're presenting there
supports it.
I do think that it's relevant that the
gl...@divmod.com schrieb:
On 07:59 pm, fdr...@acm.org wrote:
I'm actually in favor of removing the bdist_* from the standard
library, and allowing 3rd-party tools to implement whatever they need
for the distros. But I don't think what you're presenting there
supports it.
I do think that
On 2009-03-27 21:49, gl...@divmod.com wrote:
On 07:59 pm, fdr...@acm.org wrote:
I'm actually in favor of removing the bdist_* from the standard
library, and allowing 3rd-party tools to implement whatever they need
for the distros. But I don't think what you're presenting there
supports it.
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
On 28/03/2009 7:49 AM, gl...@divmod.com wrote:
Perhaps bdist_wininst/_msi could be donated to the
py2exe project if they would be willing to maintain it, and the new
project for _deb and _rpm could be called py2packman or something.
As mentioned, it isn't really a natural fit - but regardless,
