On 10 October 2012 23:15, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > However, for the application platform plugins use case, wheels can > potentially be quite awesome, because you can build one fat wheel for > all your supported platforms. "We don't want to inlcude .pyc files > for all the Pythons you might use" doesn't apply to the "we" who > already build and release different platform-specific eggs to cover > multiple platforms and Python versions. ;-)
I really don't understand the whole idea of including .pyc files in binary distributions - all they do is *reduce* the flexibility of the distribution by tying it to a single Python version. Far better to just ship the .py files and let the system compile them on demand (or if you absolutely insist, compile them at install time). Note - wheels are a binary *distribution* format, and as such aren't intended to be placed on sys.path directly. The fact that they can be is not important, that's just a side effect of using a zipfile with a simple internal layout. I concede that things are different for eggs which were intended to be an importable format (AIUI, more so than a distribution format, even). Of course, "fat" wheels containing multiple versions of *compiled* code (maybe for different architectures, or API versions) are conceivable - although I don't think the current internal layout of the wheel format supports that. Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig