[Resending because I don't think the first try made it to the list...]
I'm trying to identify which distributions in PyPI need to be made
available in binary format for people without C compilers (i.e.,
distributions including C extensions). I could use the classifier
information, but as that is u
On 5 March 2012 18:43, Paul Moore wrote:
> [Resending because I don't think the first try made it to the list...]
>
> I'm trying to identify which distributions in PyPI need to be made
> available in binary format for people without C compilers (i.e.,
> distributions including C extensions). I co
> I can't see a way of reliably establishing whether a distribution is
> "pure Python", and yet distutils/packaging clearly has that
> information available when building. Would it be worthwhile adding a
> "pure Python" flag to the PyPI classifiers, which could be
> automatically populated by packa
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> I can't see a way of reliably establishing whether a distribution is
>> "pure Python", and yet distutils/packaging clearly has that
>> information available when building. Would it be worthwhile adding a
>> "pure Python" flag to the PyPI
I'm +1 for this, and for packaging to do it automatically.
On Monday, March 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" (mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de)> wrote:
> > > I can't see a way of reliably establishing whether a distribution is
> > > "pure Pyth
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> However, downloading the source distribution and inspecting it should
> be fairly reliable.
Depends on what you want to find out. I know a bunch of packages which
contain optional C extensions. These certainly aren't pure-python and
cont
