On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:51 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > I can see some benefit to standardizing on a single format instead of > making every backend author learn e.g. the weird quirks required to > get unicode filenames correct in two different formats, and I'm not > sure why it would be a big deal to change the default for new tools > going forward given that all our infrastructure does support .zip > already. > > > > I believe it would be fairly disruptive for downstream redistributors like > Debian whose tooling is designed around the idea of a .tar.gz file, and > whom are forced to repack .zip files into .tar.gz files AIUI. I don’t > really personally care that much about the difference between .zip or > .tar.gz for a sdist, I just want to minimize people yelling at me unless > it’s for a good reason, and I don’t think this is a good reason :) > You got me curious, and well, this is Debian we're talking about... judging from [1] it looks like at least someone writing their tooling is prepared for: \.(?:zip|tgz|tbz|txz|(?:tar\.(?:gz|bz2|xz))) OTOH I think PEP 517 will break everything else about their tooling, since it all assumes the presence of setup.py? Not that any of this makes an argument for .tar.gz or .zip in particular... that's the hard part about this question, it just doesn't matter very much :-). -n [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org <http://vorpus.org>
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
