On 29 Sep 2014 22:09, "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.
As Donald noted, if the source package contents change, the public version should really change, with all binary artefacts being updated accordingly. I didn't make that clear though - it was an unstated assumption. Cheers, Nick. > > Wichert.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
