On 28-mrt-2006, at 1:18, Bob Ippolito wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Christopher Barker wrote: > >> Bob Ippolito wrote: >> >>> That whole section really needs to be restructured to address the >>> common questions and issues people have regarding finding the right >>> packages for them. >> >> great idea. >> >>> I think I'd like to turn http://pythonmac.org/ >>> packages/ into just a launch pad for finding a list of packages for >>> the Python that you're interested in. >> >> Do you mean that it wouldn't actually host them for download there? > > No, I mean that that URL won't directly list any packages. It'll be > a listing of package lists and enough information to direct a newish > user to the right list. > >> Please no. I think it is a VERY good idea to have a collection >> there for >> download. Pretty soon, I think we'll be able to call the 2.4.3 >> Universal >> build the "officially recommended" build, and we can have a >> collection >> of packages there for it. I now I'll contribute a few, and I'm sure >> others will as well. >> >> One question is: should they be eggs or traditional *.mpkgs? > > I'd certainly prefer eggs where possible, but transitionally we're > definitely going to need *.mpkgs. Maybe both for now, and/or > separate pages for .mpkgs and binary eggs?
For casual users it is easier to install mpkgs, hence we'll need mpkgs until someone writes the tool that allows one to double-click on eggs to install them. I'm tempted to do so myself just to avoid packaging stuff twice :-) Mpkgs have another advantage: they allow you to include documentation and examples into the package. None of the existing packages on pythonmac.org (except for pyobjc and possibly py2app) actually use this possibility, therefore I'd say this is not a very important advantage. Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
