[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Shea Craig added the comment: For what it's worth, I manage a lot of Macs and know a lot of people in similar roles at major enterprises. We greatly prefer installer packages for automated installation, and end up having to repackage installer apps routinely for products that don't use that

[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Changes by Ned Deily : -- versions: +Python 3.7 -Python 3.5 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Changes by Ned Deily : -- nosy: +Paul Bloch priority: normal -> high versions: -Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Ronald Oussoren added the comment: What's your plan for installers for Py3.6? In a world where backward compatibility is not an issue I'd definitely advocate trying to move to some kind off .app as the installation. That is: have a {SomeName}.app that contains the entire Python installation.

[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Ned Deily added the comment: Yes, providing Python on OS X via an app bundle, rather than an installer, seems like the way to go moving forward. But, yes, there are enough potential compatibility issues that a PEP for it is in order to make sure the major use cases are identified and

[issue24502] OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org: -- components: -Installation title: OS X 2.7 package has zeros for version numbers in sub-packages - OS X installer provides flat sub-packages with no version numbers ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org