2009/4/9 Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com>: > 2009/4/9 Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com>: >> Don't they? I have to admit that I'm baffled by how the features in >> setuptools/eggs/easy_install all hang together. What about the magic >> that creates executables from scripts? Entry points? Stuff like that. >> Don't you need to use eggs to make them work? > > No....? Entry points work even if you have the source code in a tgz > format and run setup.py install. The distribution format is not > magical for that afaik. > >> So by what you're saying, eggs are a strict subset of >> bdist_wininst, and so people should be distributing bdist_wininst >> installers. But they aren't, so what gives? > > Nobody knows about it?
Possibly :-( > But in any case, even if it would be a good idea to have every single > Python package on the system listed in the Add/Remove programs list > (Which I don't think it is, but that's a matter of taste, no logical > arguments behind that), that would in practice mean that each and > every package on PyPI must have a wininstaller, even if it is a > pure-python package. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Personally, I'd be happy if every package that currently distributes any form of Windows binaries, distributed a Windows installer. That's about the same level of coverage as existed before setuptools appeared, so I don't think that's impossible to achieve. I agree that expecting *everything* to have a Windows installer is unreasonable. As regards your other points regarding Windows installers, I don't disagree entirely. But my personal preference is to work with the system packager, even if it's less functional than I'd like. Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
