Fair enough, I didn't think of compiled wheels :) And having a clean way to run tests for the provided wheel is indeed an other good point.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Xavier Fernandez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Wheels without sdists are likely a generally bad idea, downstream >> redistributors are not going to like them. >> > > Why do you think that ? Wheels seem way simpler/saner than all the > possible things setup.py can do. > > > Wheels are simpler than a setup.py, because wheels are a binary format and > Wheels don’t need to > handle things like build software because it’s already been built. However > downstream redistributors > will not accept a Wheel as the source for a package because it is a binary > format. It doesn’t matter > if you can unzip it and there is pure python there, it is still a binary > format. So if you release only Wheels > you’re essentially saying that downstream redistributors will never > package your software (or any > software that depends on it). > > A few issues that Wheel only has: > > * If your project has a C extension, downstream redistributes need access > to the source code not the > compiled code (as does anyone wanting to use the project on platform you > didn’t release for). > > * If your project has tests that don’t get installed, they should get > shipped as part of the sdist so that > downstream can run them as part of their packaging activities to ensure > they didn’t break anything > in the test suite. However if you’re installing from Wheel you can’t do > that. > > --- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
