On 29 Sep 2014, at 15:21, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > On September 29, 2014 at 8:54:26 AM, Wichert Akkerman ([email protected]) > wrote: >> On 29 Sep 2014, at 13:58, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Right, this is my perspective as well. The point that the wheel format >>> already includes a build ordering field was significant because that file >>> naming scheme has an official specification. >>> >>> Other commands like bdist_egg, bdist_dumb and bdist_wininst aren't as >>> strict about the expected file names, although it would be good to define a >>> suggested optional build numbering convention at least for bdist_egg, such >>> that easy_install will do the right thing, even if the full source level >>> version number isn't bumped. >>> >> This is just as relevant for sdists as well. It is quite common to see a >> broken release due to a missing or wrong MANIFEST.in. >> > > Test them prior to uploading them.
You can make the exact same argument about binary distributions, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here? Mistakes are made everywhere - I’m just trying to point out that a packaging error is not unique to binary distributions. Wichert.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
