On October 7, 2015 at 1:27:31 PM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > [...] > > I also don't think it will be confusing. They'll associate the VCS thing (a > > source release) > as something focused on development for most everyone. Most people won't > explicitly > make one and nobody will be uploading it to PyPI. The end goal in my mind is > someone produces > a source wheel and uploads that to PyPI and PyPI takes it from there. Mucking > around with > manually producing binary wheels or producing source releases other than > what's checked > into vcs will be something that I suspect only advanced users will do. > > Of course people will make source releases, and should be able to > upload them to PyPI. The end goal is that *pip* will not use source > releases, but PyPI is not just there for pip. If it was, it wouldn't > even show package descriptions :-). > > There are projects on PyPI right now, today, that have no way to > generate sdists and will never have any need for "source wheels" > (because they don't use distutils and they build "none-any" wheels > directly from their source). It should still be possible for them to > upload source releases for all the other reasons that having source > releases is useful: they form a permanent record of the whole project > state (including potentially docs, tests, working notes, etc. that > don't make it into the wheels), human users may well want to download > those archives, Debian may prefer to use that as their orig.tar.gz, > etc. etc. > > And on the other end of the complexity scale, there are projects like > numpy where it's not clear to me whether they'll ever be able to > support "source wheels", and even if they do they'll still need source > releases to support user configuration at build time.
We must have different ideas of what a source release vs source wheel would look like, because I'm having a hard time squaring what you've said here with what it looks like in my head. In my head, source releases (outside of the VCS use case) will be rare and only for very complex packages that are doing very complex things. Source wheels will be something that will be semi mandatory to being a well behaved citizen (for Debian and such to download) and binary wheels will be something that you'll want to have but aren't required. I don't see any reason why source wheels wouldn't include docs, tests, and other misc files. I picture building a binary wheel directly being something similar to using fpm to build binary .deb packages directly, totally possible but unadvised. Having talked to folks who deal with Debian/Fedora packages, they won't accept a binary wheel as the input source and (given how I explained it to them) they are excited about the concept of source wheels and moving away from dynamic metadata and towards static metadata. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
