On 28 March 2013 11:40, Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com> wrote: > This is not a zip, not an egg, not a wheel but some egg-in-py, > zip-in-py or wheel-in-py and is similar to a shar shell archive. > > My point was that on the one hand, I like the fact that everything is > self contained in one single .py file that you can execute right away. > On the other hand, I find it somewhat discomforting as an emerging > best way to package and distribute self-contained bootstrap scripts. > Yet I cannot think of a better way atm: for instance splitting things > in non-encoded non-binary plain strings would be quite weird too.
Yes, my point was that Vinay's usage could be covered by distributing distil as a zip file. All it is doing is decoding it's blob of data (which is an encoded zip file) and then adding the resulting zip to sys.path. The virtualenv situation is different, as there we are trying to ensure that we remain single-file while embedding things that are *not* modules to add to sys.path. And we don't want to download our dependencies because we need to be able to run with no internet connection. But you are right, the embedded script approach is not ideal. I hope that "embedded binary blobs" does not become a common approach. I'd much rather that "runnable zip files" became the norm. It's certainly possible now, but I don't think it's well enough known (and there are administrative issues like the file extension question on Windows that make it more awkward than it should be). Hence my comments, trying to raise awareness a bit. Thanks for the feedback, and in particular the reminder that virtualenv could do with looking at this... I've added a virtualenv issue to remind me to think some more about it. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
