On 16 August 2016 at 17:49, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmin...@gmail.com> wrote: > So perhaps I'm missing something, but why are we talking about trying > to shoehorn a legacy design into Wheel? Why wouldn't we leave > bdist_egg alone and start trying to find a better way to replace it? > We could avoid over-complicating Wheel and we could spend time > polishing whatever we come up with.
+1 Wheel should remain a distribution format (with running from wheel, zipped or unzipped, an intentional but unsupported benefit - get-pip and virtualenv use the feature, but it should be treated as "use at your own risk"). Egg as distribution format is deprecated and we shouldn't look to encourage it, but egg as runtime format is fine if people want/need it (I don't see the value myself, but the work needed to modify something like buildout to move away from it probably isn't worth it). Downloading a wheel and converting it to a runtime egg format is perfectly possible. Whether buildout's preference for not adding dependencies is sufficient to push setuptools to add support for that route, I can't say. But I'm perfectly OK with saying that in due course, we'll stop supporting eggs for distribution (e.g., in terms of hosting on PyPI) and then provide a period for the likes of buildout/setuptools to decide how to migrate. If they choose not to, then fine - we have to decide whether buildout is important enough to unilaterally block the change. But I don't think we should rush on this - let's just publish the statement of intent, and then give projects like buildout the time they need to react. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig