On 13 October 2011 20:28, Tim Golden <m...@timgolden.me.uk> wrote: > On 13/10/2011 19:36, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> I don't really understand the benefits of bdist_msi over >> bdist_wininst > > Just commenting on this particular issue: in essence, the .MSI > format is the Microsoft standard, something which is especially > important for corporate rollouts. We're not particularly bureaucratic, > but I recently had to bundle a small number of common extensions as > .msi packages so they could be deployed easily onto our baseline > machines. > > I'm not saying that Python *must* have .msi support for this reason: > if it didn't already, you could argue that it could be provided by > corporates who needed this, or by 3rd party service providers, if > only by providing light .msi wrappers round standard installers.
Thanks for the clarification. I can see why this would be important. But maintaining 3 different interfaces to do essentially the same thing (collect some data from the user, then based on that data put the same set of files in the same places) seems a waste of effort, and a recipe for discrepancies in capabilities. Maybe the wininst and MSI installers should ultimately become simple UIs around a zipfile and an invocation of the packaging APIs? Not that I'm offering to do that work, I'm afraid... Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com